看不懂的sol哥

2026机会多多

3Following

2.5Kfollowers

Feed

Livestream

Feed

Awesome, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has issued a major warning: the AI sector's cycle financing scheme has reached a staggering scale of $1.4 trillion. Big tech companies and chip manufacturers invest in downstream AI clients and even provide debt guarantees for them; After clients receive the funds, they turn around and purchase chips and cloud services from these big companies, creating a closed-loop cycle where the money ultimately flows back into the big companies' revenues. Currently, there are 17 exposed AI circular transactions in the market, which we have organized, and the scale looks extremely exaggerated: 1. Nvidia ↔ OpenAI Nvidia invested $30 billion in OpenAI and provided up to $105 billion guarantees for Ohio data center leasing projects; OpenAI then purchases Nvidia chips in bulk to fill this data center. 2. Oracle ↔ OpenAI OpenAI signed a $300 billion cloud service contract with Oracle, and Oracle is heavily leveraging debt to fulfill this order. 3. Microsoft ↔ OpenAI Microsoft holds about 27% equity in OpenAI, and OpenAI promises to invest $250 billion on Microsoft's Azure cloud in the future. 4. SoftBank ↔ OpenAI SoftBank invested $64.6 billion in OpenAI, and OpenAI rents data center resources from SoftBank's subsidiary SB Energy. 5. Amazon ↔ OpenAI Amazon plans to invest up to $50 billion in OpenAI, and OpenAI simultaneously increased its cooperation quota with Amazon Cloud to $100 billion. 6. AMD ↔ OpenAI AMD provides OpenAI with up to 160 million stock warrants at an exercise price of only $0.01, almost free; in exchange, OpenAI purchases AMD chips. 7. Google ↔ Anthropic Google plans to invest up to $40 billion in Anthropic, and Anthropic promises to spend at least $121 billion on Google Cloud. 8. Amazon ↔ Anthropic Amazon plans to invest up to $33 billion in Anthropic, and Anthropic promises a minimum spend of $110 billion on AWS. 9. Broadcom ↔ Anthropic Banks lend $63 billion to a special purpose vehicle (SPC) to purchase Broadcom chips and lease them to Anthropic; Broadcom also guarantees the residual value of these chips. 10. Microsoft + Nvidia ↔ Anthropic Together they invest up to $15 billion, and Anthropic promises to spend at least $44.9 billion on Microsoft Cloud. 11. SpaceX ↔ Anthropic SpaceX loans $40 billion to purchase Nvidia GPUs and then sells computing power to Anthropic; incidentally, Nvidia itself is a shareholder of SpaceX. 12. Nvidia ↔ CoreWeave Nvidia holds about 11% of CoreWeave shares and promises to buy back $6.3 billion worth of unsold computing resources; CoreWeave's chip supply naturally comes from Nvidia. 13. Nvidia ↔ NeoCloud Nvidia promises to purchase $36 billion in computing power from this mid-sized AI cloud provider. This cloud provider uses this guaranteed income as collateral to loan and buy Nvidia GPUs. 14. Microsoft ↔ Enscale, Nebulus , Iren Microsoft signed cooperation agreements worth up to $70.9 billion with these companies, which mainly use the funds to purchase GPUs. 15. Google ↔ Former Bitcoin mining companies Google provides multi-billion dollar guarantees for data center leases of TeraWulf $WULF and Cipher Mining $CIFR in exchange for equity in these companies. 16. Meta ↔ Blue Owl $OWL They jointly invest in a $27.3 billion data center project, with Meta providing $28 billion in guarantees. 17. Anthropic IPO Chip and cloud providers including Nvidia, Google, AMD, Micron , Broadcom, and Microsoft collectively subscribe to $26 billion worth of Anthropic IPO shares; however, Anthropic itself owes these companies hundreds of billions 😂 Why is this worth close attention? With funds cycling back and debt continuously rolling over, semiconductor, cloud providers, and AI-related companies can easily deliver better-than-expected quarterly earnings, making revenues appear to surge. But the underlying logic is fragile. This $1.4 trillion financial game ultimately depends on end customers' willingness to continuously pay for AI services to sustain it. If downstream AI monetization falls short of expectations, the first to collapse will be AI model companies and emerging cloud service providers that rely on borrowed money to expand capital expenditures; Subsequently, the tech giants who invested equity or provided leasing guarantees for them will be dragged into a chain reaction of defaults, which is the core of the IMF's warning this time. When the total funds are circulating, it looks like a never-stopping profit perpetual motion machine; But once cash flow breaks, it could trigger a massive chain reaction of collapses. When looking at AI companies' revenues, it is essential to deeply investigate the hidden guarantees and debt scale behind them.

Jensen Huang's resignation has pushed Nvidia from "whether there will be a leadership change" to "what happens after the change." On November 12, the official website confirmed that he resigned as president, CEO, and director, effective immediately, with CFO Colette Kress appointed as interim CEO. The official term used was "resignation." But looking at the timeline, the pressure was cumulative: he admitted to employees that he was unfaithful to his wife, combined with media reports about his direct subordinates, and further compounded by external espionage allegations against related women. These issues have gone beyond personal mistakes, directly touching on conflicts of interest in the company's code of conduct and national security concerns at the Washington level. Holding only about 3.6% of shares without control, it ultimately ended in resignation. This path is not uncommon in tech history. Some cases involved the board taking direct action, such as Steve Jobs being ousted from Apple in 1985, Sandy Lerner being pushed out of Cisco by investors and the board in 1990, Andrew Mason being fired from Groupon in 2013 due to stock price collapse, and David Neeleman being removed as CEO of JetBlue after a snowstorm crisis in 2008. Others were forced to step down under investor or public pressure, like Travis Kalanick resigning from Uber in 2017 due to investor pressure, or Mark Pincus stepping down as CEO of Zynga in 2013 due to deteriorating performance. Some were directly ousted by partners, such as Martin Eberhard being pushed out of Tesla in 2008 over strategic conflicts, Noah Glass being ousted from Twitter by co-founders in 2006, and Wang Zhidong being dismissed by Sina's board in 2001. Jensen Huang's case is closer to the "forced to step down" category: not a board-mandated firing after a performance collapse, but a resignation following scandals and external pressure. Unlike these cases, Nvidia currently lacks a true number two. When Jobs left, Apple still had other executives to hold the fort; when Altman was fired from OpenAI, the company had a clear technical team. Nvidia's flat structure makes the company highly dependent on Jensen Huang alone; he is simultaneously the final decision-maker on product direction, a key node in core customer relationships, and the most influential lobbyist in Washington. Kress stepping in is the most pragmatic choice for now. She joined in 2013 and has long been responsible for finance, capital allocation, and investor relations. Wall Street knows her best, and she can stabilize expectations and the team first. But technology and product foresight are not her strengths. The mid-to-long-term market is still watching the Ian Buck line. He is one of the core inventors of CUDA and directly responsible for key clients like Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and OpenAI. Choosing him means trying to preserve Nvidia's most critical software moat. The board will most likely use Kress as a transition, then see if the technical team can take over. Whether there will be a formal appointment or an external candidate introduced depends on actions in the coming weeks. Regarding market value impact, it has shifted from emotional shock to repricing. Since the scandal broke, Nvidia has lost hundreds of billions in market value. After the official announcement, the resolution of uncertainty itself may bring short-term emotional recovery, but investors will immediately start assessing whether Nvidia without Jensen Huang can maintain its previous growth pace. Historically, some companies recovered after their founders were ousted (Apple being the most typical example), while others did not. The key lies in whether the moat remains and if the successor can maintain the pace. If in the coming weeks major clients do not clearly shift to a wait-and-see stance, product rhythm remains stable, and the CUDA ecosystem's lock-in effect persists, the stock price has a chance to gradually stabilize; if the succession process drags on, a vacuum emerges, or clients and investors doubt technological continuity, operational risks may exceed previous governance risks. The November 17 earnings call will be the first critical observation window. Nvidia's moat remains, but the guardian of the moat has changed. The market will next use orders, capital expenditures, and client statements to reprice this new phase.

Jensen Huang has officially resigned! On November 12, NVIDIA's official website released a press statement confirming that Jensen Huang has resigned from his positions as President, CEO, and Director, effective immediately, with CFO Colette Kress appointed as interim CEO. The official wording used was "resigned," not "removed." This turned the previous day's rumors about the board possibly taking action into a fait accompli. Looking at the timeline, the pressure was cumulative. First, he admitted to employees that he was unfaithful to his wife, then The New York Times reported on his relationship with a direct subordinate (Vice President of Medical Business Kimberly Powell), compounded by the U.S. authorities' espionage suspicion regarding the related woman (Alice Huang) — though there has been no court ruling and no public acknowledgment of the second relationship by Jensen himself. These combined factors have gone beyond a "personal mistake" and directly touched on the company's code of conduct regarding conflicts of interest, as well as external concerns about national security. A few days ago, the board publicly stated they "still trusted him," but days later the official website issued the resignation statement, indicating internal deliberations had concluded. The interim CEO is Colette Kress, which aligns with prior market expectations. She joined NVIDIA in 2013 and has long been responsible for finance, capital allocation, and investor relations. She is currently the best candidate to quickly stabilize Wall Street, employees, and key customers. Her short-term tasks are clear: clarify financial guidance, reassure customers, and stabilize the team. NVIDIA lacks a true second-in-command; its flat structure makes the company highly dependent on Jensen Huang. Kress stepping in is currently the safest transitional solution. However, she is not the long-term answer. Kress's strength lies in stability, but her weakness is in technology and product foresight. The mid-to-long-term discussions still focus on technical leaders like Ian Buck — one of the core inventors of CUDA, directly responsible for key clients such as Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and OpenAI. Choosing Buck would mean preserving NVIDIA's most critical software moat. The board is likely to adopt a "Kress transition + internal technical team relay" approach for now. Whether they will make a formal appointment or bring in an external candidate depends on actions in the coming weeks. The impact on market value has already been partially priced in the short term. From the scandal's emergence to the official resignation, NVIDIA has lost hundreds of billions in market capitalization, with an over 8% drop after hours on November 11 due to removal rumors. After the official announcement, the market will enter a new pricing phase: on one hand, the resolution of uncertainty may bring short-term stabilization ("the worst news is out"); on the other hand, investors will immediately question whether NVIDIA without Jensen Huang can maintain its previous growth pace. Jensen Huang was not just the CEO; he was the final decision-maker on product direction, the core node in customer relationships, and one of Washington's most influential lobbyists. These capabilities are difficult to fully replace by one person or an interim team. If in the coming weeks Kress can stabilize financial expectations, key customers do not visibly shift to a wait-and-see stance, and the CUDA ecosystem and product cadence remain orderly, the stock price may gradually recover; conversely, if the succession process drags on, creates a vacuum, or customers and investors doubt technological continuity, operational risks could exceed previous governance risks. The earnings call on November 17 will be the first critical observation window. The most important issue now is not "he's gone," but "who will take over, how, and whether the transition will be stable." NVIDIA's moat remains, but its guardian has changed. The market will use orders, capital expenditures, and customer statements to reprice this new phase.

Trading logic changes, Jensen Huang resigns, the big show is just beginning!! In November, Washington and Silicon Valley are filled with a bloody atmosphere. Just as the midterm elections settled and Trump and the Republicans lost the congressional majority almost simultaneously, a piece of news tore through the global tech community: Nvidia's board held a special meeting and officially approved Jensen Huang's resignation as CEO. The timing coincidence is as precise as a long-rehearsed script—the moment the election results landed, exposés targeting Jensen Huang came in waves, from his private life to board operations, from internal governance to old debts. The intensity of the attacks, the precise timing, and the ample ammunition suggest a determination not to stop until Jensen Huang is completely brought down. Most of these so-called "bombshells" are old stories, long no secret within Silicon Valley circles. The real question is: Why now? Why immediately after the election? Public opinion rarely ferments spontaneously like this—it is usually scattered, random, and unorganized. What we see here is a standard political purge: ammunition prepared long ago, coordinates set, just waiting for the trigger to be pulled. Once the midterm election gunshot fires, the hunt begins. To understand the essence of this turmoil, one must grasp the deep resentment within the Democratic camp toward Trump’s "long-standing bitterness." This resentment has accumulated layer upon layer, reaching a point where it must be vented. First, it is the hatred of elitism. During Trump's administration, large corporations received massive tax cuts, regulations were broadly relaxed, tech giants were allowed to monopolize and expand, and a batch of supergroups wealthy enough to rival nations was nurtured. Nvidia’s market value topping the world is the biggest beneficiary of this "national champion enterprise" policy. And Jensen Huang even emotionally praised in public forums that America’s unique institutional advantage in AI development comes from President Trump. This statement is both a loyalty pledge to Trump and a self-signed death warrant. In political purges, nothing stands out more than open loyalty as a target. Second, it is resentment over China policy. In the core battlefield of computing power in great power competition, the Democrats believe the Trump camp’s suppression of China was far from enough: export controls on high-end chips were frequently loosened, China’s large models quickly caught up by distilling U.S. technology, sanctions on key Chinese components like optical modules were delayed, ultimately leading to China’s computing power rising unexpectedly, gaining strength to rival the U.S. In Washington’s strategic narrative, Jensen Huang’s "close relationship" with the Chinese market is not business rationality but a matter of stance. The failure in computing power competition needs a scapegoat, and no one fits better than the king of the computing power empire. Third, it is the wrath of financial backers’ reckoning. Jensen Huang and figures like Musk used real money and platform resources to support Trump’s campaign, and opponents have kept this score in mind. The iron law of political struggle is: to bring down a person, first cut off their money; to tame a camp, first purge its financiers. Throughout history, new rulers always target financiers when changing power; the only difference is which one moves first. Fourth, it is the taboo of civilizational conflict. This is not convenient to say outright, but everyone knows it well. The Democrats, extremely sensitive to ideology and identity politics, fundamentally cannot accept that America’s core strategic lifeline—computing power—is controlled by an Asian. The civilizational conflicts described by Huntington won’t be recorded in official congressional hearings but will be the subtext of every personnel purge. Skin color and surname sometimes weigh more than performance and loyalty. Fifth, it is the chaos of Silicon Valley infighting. Nvidia is the center of the computing power empire, and Jensen Huang is its king. The GPU quotas in the king’s hands determine the fate of the vassals. The humiliation of downstream model giants queuing for chips and acting according to his mood has long bred deep resentment. It is said that this time the knife was handed by Anthropic. Once the king shows signs of weakness, the first to pounce are often not external enemies but the vassals who have pledged allegiance for years. This drama has been played from the Medici family to the Rockefellers, from The Merchant of Venice to The Wolf of Wall Street—the script never changes, only the actors. Therefore, it must be emphasized that Jensen Huang’s resignation turmoil is not the end of a tabloid story but the beginning of a seismic upheaval. Purging Jensen Huang is likely just the first domino to fall. After the midterm elections, the U.S. political and tech cycles resonate and overlap, inevitably leading to turbulent waves and flying black swans: the antitrust guillotine will fall, regulatory iron curtains on tech giants will tighten, China policy may escalate in a "who is tougher" direction, Silicon Valley’s power map will be redrawn, and Musk’s situation will likely be even more perilous than Jensen Huang’s. Financiers line up for purges, giants line up for dismemberment—this is the full picture of the great upheaval. For us, seeing the big picture is more important than betting on direction. In the chaos of great upheaval, any one-sided bet is gambling on luck, and the most rational strategy can be summarized simply: reduce exposure, control risk, and watch the show while sipping tea. There is no safe position in the eye of the storm; the chain reaction of political purges will erupt before the market prices it in. At this moment, preserving strength and shrinking the front line is more valuable than any offense. Of course, watching the show is not just idle observation—the internal strife of America’s computing power empire is precisely China’s most precious time window for computing power autonomy; the mutual tearing among Silicon Valley vassals is precisely the prelude to the global tech order’s reorganization. The end of an era is never a thunderous crash but quietly begins the moment the king is expelled from the palace. The silhouette of Jensen Huang walking out of Nvidia’s headquarters may well be the first frame of this seismic upheaval.