[torginus]

Also these deals are not circular - NVIDIA has to pay a lot of money for chips and foundry capacity just as an example, so money leaves the circle and participants have to raise capital to replace it, which means if this were just a financialy trick, it would be very expensive to maintain.

[jgord]

Many people are calling them circular, eg bloomberg, BIS :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwcM0By4aJQ

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/bursting-ai-bubble-collaps...

diagram : https://cms.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/AI%20ecosys...

My point is, Id like to know how circular or not they are - clearly a lot of money is actually being spent on GPUs/datacenter build/electricity, Id like to know what fraction that is.

[cl42]

Two contradictory thoughts based on the article:

1. One thing you could do is look at free cashflow. The actual cash a company generates and keeps on its balance sheet would be a clear indicator of retaining profit or resources after circular deals.

2. The above doesn't preclude a company from committing to backstops and offtake agreements, so you still need to track those.

... so you'd want to look at how much cash a company is retaining and whether it is committing to act as a sort of lender of last resort.

Up until this week, I'd argue that Nvidia is was a pretty solid player in this space. If it's generating $10s of billions in cash, then who cares if it put $10 billion into a risky startup? It can afford it.

Now, however, it is also exploring committing $250 billion as a backstop for OpenAI's data center projects, which moves it to the riskier side of things.

I know I'm not providing you with data; I don't have that... But I think the above is a signpost to watch out for.

[infecto]

It’s a catchy headline but I also am not convinced they ultimately are. Certainly some of risky bets in the lot but most of what has been reported on is deals with ultimately cash. Compared to say the dot com bubble where lots of financing was happening.