Incorrect. NVIDIA now owns a massive equity stake in OpenAI.
On top of that, they have also underwritten loans to them (much as an automaker loans you money for the car you buy from them).
They have *also*, on top of that, given them written guarantees (similar to a loan, but you don't pay unless the other party defaults) but the business sense for that one is obvious- the potential revenue from chip sales will be 7 times the guarantee amount.

You, like dude above, are just regurgitating the musings of morons on the internet.
It's easy for a layman to say, "omg, NVIDIA is PAYING OpenAI to buy its chips! that's insane!" but it is, for the umpteenth time, completely normal in business.

The risk for vendor financing is that it makes it difficult for investors to truly assess risk. Everyone is aware of this. The market is generally unphased by it, right or wrong.
Like Lucent back in the 90s, who lent my company money to buy their routers, this shit can go terribly wrong if the purchasers go bust. NVIDIA stock will literally catch on fire and burn to ash. Of course, it could also just end up being like any one of the literally hundreds of different large industries with strong vendor financing.
Time will tell. Either way, you're no fucking Oracle of Omaha, and it isn't a circle jerk.

There's a difference between that... and... what?
Sentence get cut off?
Either way- wrong.

Complete nonsense.
You're exchanging money for ownership in a company, or to create demand where that demand is expected to produce future profits as well.
Don't take this personally, but I really don't think you're smart enough to be trying to overthink this shit.

You need to quit regurgitating the musings of every moron you see on YouTube. It'd do you a lot of good.
It is perfectly normal for a company to invest in an indirect customer of its.
That accounts for literally most of Intel's acquisitions.

You really are too stupid to be having this conversation.

Money comes back to your company by many routes of different lengths.
Shorter lengths are faster, obviously.
But it's also completely normal.
Investing in your customers (even to the point of sometimes buying them, which is just fancy speak for "investing until there are no more shares to buy") is not some kind of crazy thing that is new or bad.
Of course- some very high profile circular financing arrangements have exploded spectacularly- but far more often, they're just already there, undergirding systems you consider stable.

Your Roomba analogue is perhaps more spot on than you realize.
You see, I did throw away my broom. I just adapted by running my Roomba multiple times in a row (in loops?)

Wait until I tell you how the economy works.

"Circular Financing" (today's rebrand of vendor financing) is just an accelerant. Like all accelerants, what you accelerate and what your goals for it are what matters.
"Circular Financing" is not remotely abnormal.

Does it bother you in the slightest that shit like this comes from researchers employed by the hype-mongers, and meanwhile independent researchers find nothingburger after nothingburger?

I think you're drowning in kool-aid. You come off as someone telling me how cigarettes don't cause cancer, as researchers have shown for decades.

I say this as someone who has been developing LLM harnesses for going on 5 years now.

Frederick Sound doesnâ(TM)t have an active VTS operation.

No, I'm not going to play that game. You can google yourself.
It's a matter of such renowned concern that you'd have to be willfully ignorant to not be appraised of it.

The gist of it is easy.
Either Congresspeople, Pelosi being within the top 5 or 10 in terms of returns- I can't remember- are omniscient, or they trade based on insider information they obtain in Congress.
It's a simple matter of math.
They perform better than professional investors at far, far above what would be possible given random chance. So they have some edge.
When you have a collection of people with an unspecified edge... you can guess that the edge may have something to do with that group of people.

No media source is evidence. Perhaps least of all, Fox News. Their trades are the evidence.
Did you think that was clever?

You're a fucking moron.
I said clearly that none of it rises to the evidentiary requirement for a criminal prosecution, but enough circumstantial evidence can, in fact, convict. And she's got heaps of it. Well, more accurately- her husband does.

Visa and NVIDIA trades come to recent mind, and there's the fact that they outperform professional investors by up to 50%.
I'll gladly stand with you and say, "We can't call them criminals". Because we can't.
But to say there's no evidence? No, that's flat out fucking political delusion.

Eyeroll. We don't know that eating chicken on Sunday is illegal until someone takes it to court and loses.
Give me a fucking break. Does that kind of logic strike you as insightful?

This is an assertion we can work with, but it's wrong.

More accurately, it fits the definition of what the courts have found not to be insider trading for as long as SEC rule 10b-5 has been in existence.

Trump has no fiduciary responsibility to any consumer of that information, or to the organizations he has the power to move.
While it's true that this is uncharted territory- it's uncharted in the same way that Congresscritters trading on insider information was. It required an act to make it illegal, because there's no fiduciary responsibility. That information didn't come from the inside- it came from the most outside place possible.

If we're being technical, insider trading doesn't exist.
There is securities fraud, and the SEC regulations and jurisprudence that amount to what we loosely call insider trading.
Securities fraud, of course, is illegal.

Correct.

Incorrect.
So very close to correct- but still incorrect.
Insider information is not information that the public doesn't know- if that were illegal.... lol.
Insider information is secret non-public information.
Knowing something before someone else and trading on it is not illegal.
Knowing something you weren't supposed to know because it wasn't supposed to be public and trading on it is securities fraud.

The time interval is a red herring. You are wrong without regard to it.

Na.
If that were the actual caselaw surrounding it, it would be fucking insane.

There needs to be a breach of fudiciary trust or confidence.
A third party monetizing their power to affect traded corporations, and people having a better read of that shitbag is not insider trading.

It is.

Stop using the word insider. It's a weasel word. There's nothing insider about this.

It's a markedly different form of ick.
Imagine someone finds out that the SEC is going to ban the trading of cryptocurrencies.
Imagine he tells the world.
Everyone who trades on that is guilty of insider trading.... for having traded on public information about entities that did not have that information in confidence?
No, this is someone monetizing their market moving power. It's fucking vile, but there's nothing "insider" about it.

The SEC won't do shit, because it cannot do shit.
1) This isn't insider trading.
2) Reacting off of privileged access to public statements is not insider trading. It must be confidential information about a traded entity.

This is a market mover charging for early access to his movement power.
There's nothing illegal about it, though it is pretty fucking vile.

Know how I know you're a racist piece of shit?

This is at least true- but mostly because Obama was a fucking hawk who enjoyed murdering the fuck out of people overseas.
Your racist horse shit notwithstanding.