Live data from Hacker News

Nvidia, CoreWeave, and Nebius: Inside the Circular Financing of the GPU Boom

io-fund.com

11–20 of 197 posts

Re: Nvidia, CoreWeave, and Nebius: Inside the Circular Financing of the GPU Boom

#13

Why is it a big deal? Nvidia invested $2b into CoreWeave for 9% equity stake. CoreWeave is spending $35b in CapEx in 2026. Therefore, Nvidia's investment is only 5.7% of CoreWeave's single year CapEx. The other $32b is coming from other sources that isn't Nvidia. This is hardly circular. Nvidia invests in Neoclouds because it's a hedge against hyperscalers having too much power, ie designing and prioritizing their ow…

You're probably just responding to the headline but this person is an AI bull and isn't claiming it's a big deal, she's going into it and explaining it.

Just the look and feel and the subscribe fixed position in particular, made me bounce.

Re: Nvidia, CoreWeave, and Nebius: Inside the Circular Financing of the GPU Boom

#14

Why is it a big deal? Nvidia invested $2b into CoreWeave for 9% equity stake. CoreWeave is spending $35b in CapEx in 2026. Therefore, Nvidia's investment is only 5.7% of CoreWeave's single year CapEx. The other $32b is coming from other sources that isn't Nvidia. This is hardly circular. Nvidia invests in Neoclouds because it's a hedge against hyperscalers having too much power, ie designing and prioritizing their ow…

> Why is it a big deal? Nvidia invested $2b into CoreWeave for 9% equity stake.

Depends if they actually got the $2b in real money. There's a difference.

It's a big deal if no money was involved. Nothing even entered the company directly. Some deals have structured with Special Purpose Vehicles where money goes to the SPV. The SPV buys GPUs with it (from Nvidia). GPUs is loaned back to the company involved. So this company is stuck with this GPU rental, which may or may not be what they want and not $2b.

This sounds like a bad deal? So Nvidia had to sweeten the deal and promise min utilization on those GPUs by renting it themselves even if they don't need it.

So what's income and what's expense here?

That's the problem. It's inflated and messed up.

Re: Nvidia, CoreWeave, and Nebius: Inside the Circular Financing of the GPU Boom

#15

[flagged]

Isn’t that just what people tell themselves at the top? https://www.currentmarketvaluation.com/models/s&p500-mean-re...

You're saying people tell themselves at the top that the run can continue for another few years?

Re: Nvidia, CoreWeave, and Nebius: Inside the Circular Financing of the GPU Boom

#16

Would this author prefer that Nvidia buy equity using GPUs directly? I don't think it actually counts as circular.

> I don't think it actually counts as circular.

It is. The GPUs go on to be used to get loans to then get more GPUs.

Re: Nvidia, CoreWeave, and Nebius: Inside the Circular Financing of the GPU Boom

#18

Circular financing is a dead horse - dont beat it. Instead, what is more interesting could be: Is there a path to these builds becoming economically profitable ? Towards this, some metrics to watch are: 1) ROI per token per dollar 2) Enterprise token budgets. And at what point there is an overbuild relative to the token roi. Alternatively, pressure on token costs due to the open weights models etc.

These questions can't really be answered now because things are moving too fast. That may explain why people are latching on to things they can prove like circular financing even if those arguments are pretty weak.

Re: Nvidia, CoreWeave, and Nebius: Inside the Circular Financing of the GPU Boom

#19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t that just what people tell themselves at the top? https://www.currentmarketvaluation.com/models/s&p500-mean-re...

You're saying people tell themselves at the top that the run can continue for another few years?

That's how every bubble works.

Re: Nvidia, CoreWeave, and Nebius: Inside the Circular Financing of the GPU Boom

#20
post #9

All financing is circular. This concern is beyond the pale contrived Financing is circular because creating a liability for one party (debt) creates an asset for another (the bank) off of which more debt can be secured A bank / financier sells trust and reassurance. They otherwise invent most money from thin air.

That’s not the point. The issue is that loaning/investing to a client so they can buy from you conflates your investments with your revenue.

It may be fine, or not. It it has been a frequent type of manipulation to obfuscate the real accounting situation.

Post reply on HN