> Two weeks ago, Nvidia Corp. agreed to invest as much as $100 billion in OpenAI to help the leading AI startup fund a data-center buildout so massive it could power a major city. OpenAI in turn committed to filling those sites with millions of Nvidia chips. The arrangement was promptly criticized for its “circular” nature.
That's not a "circular" deal, that's a... regular deal.
I genuinely don't understand the criticism here. Every business deal is -- I'll do something for you, you do something for me, and we'll both be better off. That's the free market.
Regardless of whether AI is a bubble, this is just business as usual.
A healthy two‑way exchange isn’t the issue, as you note, partners routinely buy from each other. The problem critics flagged here is that this particular arrangement starts to resemble “vendor financing” or a circular funding loop. Nvidia commits up to $100 billion to OpenAI. OpenAI then uses that money to buy Nvidia’s chips. Nvidia books the revenue and likely earns equity or upside in OpenAI. On paper, both sides look like they’re growing dramatically. But it’s the same capital being passed around, and it makes it harder to tell how much real, third‑party demand is driving those numbers.
Why people worry:
• Real demand vs. vendor financing: When the supplier is effectively fronting the cash for the customer’s purchases, it’s not the same as independent spending from end users. Investors and regulators want to see whether OpenAI could buy all those chips without Nvidia’s financing.
• Confusing financials: Nvidia appears to rack up huge sales, while OpenAI’s balance sheet swells with cutting-edge hardware financed by Nvidia. Untangling how much of each company’s “growth” is externally driven versus funded by the other side becomes tricky.
• Risk concentration: Nvidia’s fortunes would hinge on OpenAI delivering an multi-trillion-dollar scale business to justify the investment. If AI demand doesn’t materialize as hoped, Nvidia isn’t just missing chip sales, it’s directly exposed to OpenAI’s downside.
• Governance & optics: When vendor and customer roles blur, people question whether decisions are being made to satisfy true market demand or to juice financial metrics and valuations.
So it’s not that reciprocal deals are bad; it’s that circular, high-dollar deals can obscure what’s actually happening under the hood. That’s why folks are raising eyebrows.
It’s like Sam giving Pat a $20 “investment,” and Pat immediately spending that same $20 to buy Sam’s lunch vouchers. Sam says, “I sold $20 of lunches!” Pat says, “I’ve got $20 in lunches!” But really, it’s one $20 bill just doing a lap.
I'm generally of the same take as you: this reads much more to me like 2009-2013 Apple where they fronted cash to suppliers to do build outs and get to the 10x scale Apple needed ASAP. People looking at this as "proof" there's a "bubble" scare me.
That's not a "circular" deal, that's a... regular deal.
I genuinely don't understand the criticism here. Every business deal is -- I'll do something for you, you do something for me, and we'll both be better off. That's the free market.
Regardless of whether AI is a bubble, this is just business as usual.