>Timing it for Christmas Eve ensures minimal media scrutiny of these connections.
Sounds like the media is truly the one in charge.
Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole
71–80 of 184 posts
Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole
#72> Most production AI applications aren't running 405B models. They're running 7B-70B models that need low latency and high throughput. Really? At least for LLMs, most actual usage is concentrated on huge SOTA models. 1 trillion parameters or more. And LLMs seem to be the lion's share of AI compute demand.
OpenAI is trying to move as many requests as they can to a "smaller" model (still suspected to be ~200B).
Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole
#73This behavior is extremely damaging to the startup scene. Who would join a startup these days unless it’s run by a close friend or relative? At least in that case, the scorned junior employees would have social recourse.
Oh FFS 0.1% of this acquisition is $20M. 0.5% is $100M. Junior to senior equity lies in this range. They'll be more than fine. They'll be 1%ers to 0.1%ers after taxes, yeesh. It's never ever enough. is it?
Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought this was always the case? Hearing about examples certainly isn't new.
It has always been the case, but each year there’s a fresh crop of new, bright-eyed 20-year-olds who haven’t learned it yet. The entire startup ecosystem essentially depends on the fact that some people haven’t yet internalized that options are worthless and working 80+-hour weeks if you’re employee #3 or higher never pays off, because even in the slim chance your company has a successful exit you’ll get fucked over…
Getting screwed over is a part of life.
The problem imo is when you actively lie to me. I won't go into specifics, but I was lied to , said F em, went the legal route and got smacked down.
It's not even worth a name and shame. Just sip a shot of whiskey and try to move on. This is why I like contract jobs. Ain't no equity. It's much more honest.
Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole
#75nVidia's big problem right now is they have more money than they can productively spend and are way down the stupid money hole just looking for any kind of return. This is a failure of capitalism.
Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole
#76I wonder how the startup scene will adjust to this if it becomes mainstream. can employee contracts be modified to force compensation even in this case? seems difficult to write one up without weird second order effects. if this does end up being something that is legal and successfully circumvents anti trust, does it mean antitrust actually is a failure in practice? 2026 hasn't even begun and more shenanigans are in…
Regulations shouldn’t have to change with every new fintech innovation, and the IRS already has the necessary laws in place to catch and prosecute abuse of unpredicted loophole technicalities as tax fraud with intent. We’re better off applying a general tax to “gross revenue not paid as wages” and directing it to a universal basic income fund. The purchase price is gross revenue, and the less they pay out as employee…
> Regulations shouldn’t have to change with every new fintech innovation…
Hard disagree given that a lot of fintech innovation is increasingly devious ways to circumvent the spirit and the letter of the law
> … and VCs would face the choice of taking half the payment and fucking over workers, or taking the same size payment while not fucking over workers. They may be selfish, but there not so self-destructive as to choose the former out of spite
Also hard disagree. The VC and investor people I’ve met and work with seemed to have a cultural aversion to labor being anywhere near the same level of compensation or power as them. I would fully expect them to take a deal that fucked over the employees if they got paid the same either way.
You’d have to tune your suggested system so that not fucking over the employees was heavily incentivized
Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole
#77I wonder how the startup scene will adjust to this if it becomes mainstream. can employee contracts be modified to force compensation even in this case? seems difficult to write one up without weird second order effects. if this does end up being something that is legal and successfully circumvents anti trust, does it mean antitrust actually is a failure in practice? 2026 hasn't even begun and more shenanigans are in…
Regulations shouldn’t have to change with every new fintech innovation, and the IRS already has the necessary laws in place to catch and prosecute abuse of unpredicted loophole technicalities as tax fraud with intent. We’re better off applying a general tax to “gross revenue not paid as wages” and directing it to a universal basic income fund. The purchase price is gross revenue, and the less they pay out as employee…
[flagged]
Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole
#78No shade but most other coverage will focus on whether this signals an AI bubble. That's missing the story. Nvidia explicitly did NOT acquire Groq. They licensed the IP and hired the talent. This structure dodges CFIUS review (Groq had $1.5B in Saudi government contracts), antitrust scrutiny, and years of regulatory delays. The $13B premium over the September valuation was the cost of regulatory arbitrage. Announced…
> Why do I hate Chamath? >Let's look at the sh he dumped on retail with his abysmal SPAC track record I do not see why one would feel animosity towards Chamath for this reason. Was there fraud involved? Otherwise, all investors are liable for doing their own due diligence.
Do you need someone to commit a crime to hate them?
Do you still need them to commit a crime when they are rich and powerful, and connected with the current administration that sets the law?
If a new law came out that said Chamath can do whatever he wants and it’s always legal, is it impossible to hate him in your worldview?
Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole
#79This behavior is extremely damaging to the startup scene. Who would join a startup these days unless it’s run by a close friend or relative? At least in that case, the scorned junior employees would have social recourse.
I was talking with a great-sounding few-person early startup (nice people, non-evil business, interesting work, etc.), and they wanted me to fill a highly-skilled role... in-office in a VHCOLA, for $110K and "0.5%" in usual option schedule. (Presumably also with the usual barriers to options ever being exercised or liquidated equitably.)
Even fresh grads with no experience take home more in this town.
I live to work, and I'd be willing to spend a few more years in student-apartment quality of life, and to work like a strategic asset to make the startup successful. But I've learned that deal should include a FIRE lottery ticket, not a condo downpayment lottery ticket.
If your early startup doesn't want to share significant equity, https://levels.fyi/ provides TC numbers of what established companies are paying, even for people who wouldn't be good for a startup.
Maybe it's the recent years of what VC culture has devolved to. ("Why is your cap table cutting in early key hires significantly? Do you have a leadership problem, bro?") Maybe this is just another facet of the "mask-off" or "late-stage capitalism" that people have started calling out in other facets of society.
Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole
#80> Most production AI applications aren't running 405B models. They're running 7B-70B models that need low latency and high throughput. Really? At least for LLMs, most actual usage is concentrated on huge SOTA models. 1 trillion parameters or more. And LLMs seem to be the lion's share of AI compute demand.
OpenAI is trying to move as many requests as they can to a "smaller" model (still suspected to be ~200B).
I suspect it to be >1T, just without reasoning.