Silicon's Circular Moment: NVIDIA, Openai, Intel, And The Next Boom-Bust Cycle

(MENAFN- The Rio Times) (Op-Ed Analysis) The chip king bankrolls the hungriest AI lab; the lab commits to buy the chip king's hardware at industrial scale; both sprinkle equity across the supply chain.

It's audacious, elegantly aligned-and inherently fragile. We've seen this movie in railroads, telecoms, and dot-coms: the technology endures, the cycle doesn't.
The deal that defines the era
NVIDIA's plan to invest up to $100 billion in OpenAI-paired with supplying millions of data-center GPUs to power roughly 10 gigawatts of new compute-turns AI infrastructure into a systems bet. Equity plus hardware isn't just a purchase order; it's an attempt to lock in the economics of the frontier.
Tightening the loop: suppliers, clouds, capital
OpenAI is stitching multi-gigawatt capacity with partners like CoreWeave , Oracle, and SoftBank. CoreWeave, in turn, orders NVIDIA systems while NVIDIA owns a stake there. On paper, incentives align and time-to-capacity compresses.

In practice, risk concentrates: if model monetization lags, the same network that amplifies growth can transmit stress-vendors, customers, and financiers pulled down in a single downdraft.


Enter Intel: hedge, rescue, or both?
NVIDIA's roughly $5 billion stake in Intel, alongside government and outside capital, gives Intel time and NVIDIA optionality.

A successful Intel turnaround in foundry and accelerators becomes a friendly capacity hedge; a stumble still stabilizes a strategic U.S. supplier at modest cost. Either way, the optics-state support, cross-holdings, potential exclusivities-invite scrutiny.
The bull case: productivity tides
Generative and agentic systems look like general-purpose technologies. As inference embeds in code, design, support, and science, unit economics improve; subscriptions bundle AI; compute demand proves stickier than skeptics expect.

Valuations can compress without killing the build-out-like fiber after the dot-com bust. In this reading, circular ownership is a feature that speeds deployment and lowers transaction friction.
The bear case: circular finance meets hard limits
One vendor dominating a chokepoint magnifies any supply, legal, or security shock. Demand elasticity may bite: if enterprise ROI trails promises, pre-booked capacity turns into ballast.

Antitrust risk rises as cross-holdings blur lines between partner and competitor. And the physical world intrudes-power, land, cooling, and grid interconnects can't scale at the speed of term sheets. Circular financing papers over frictions-until it can't.
A necessary counterpoint
Critics add a simpler worry: feedback loops dull discipline. When capital, customers, and suppliers are partially the same entities, price signals blur and risk is underpriced.

That's how sectors overbuild: tracks laid side-by-side in the 19th century, redundant fiber in the 1990s, cloud overspend in 2022–23. The assets often prove useful later; the equity holders pay the tuition.
What the last man in remembers
Every cycle mints real infrastructure-and punishes late capital. The lesson isn't to sit out the revolution; it's to price it correctly.

Separate compute that unlocks durable revenue from capacity built for leaderboard theater. Watch leverage. Assume power and networking, not chips alone, become the scarcest inputs.
A prudent stance for exuberant times
Policy should accelerate deployment-onshoring, diversified supply, cheaper inference-while resisting entanglements that cement single-vendor dependency.

Investors should favor cash-generative workflows over speculative scale. Operators should build for constraints: watts, racks, routes.

AI's future looks inevitable; its cash flows won't be linear. The circular deals of 2025 could be brilliant accelerants-or the kindling for the next reset. The smart play is to ride the technology-and hedge the cycle.

MENAFN26092025007421016031ID1110116980