Jason Hall

If you think about the importance of its chips and software, as you said, across the full value chain, there's no getting around that.

That goes back to all of the companies that are building AI, that are selling AI products, the companies that are using AI in their businesses.

All of those things do come back to NVIDIA.

Now, here's the thing.

The straw that stirs the drink, that phrase was coined by Reggie Jackson.

Reggie Jackson hit a ton of home runs.

If you look at what Nvidia has done, it's extending its reach as a capital provider across the ecosystem.

I don't think we should discount how important that is.

But like Reggie Jackson, there's also the potential for a ton of striking out to happen here, as it is provided capital across other businesses that are going to need to survive on their own.

Also, the capital sources that they provided may or may not lead to a lot of that capex spending and future revenue that the company is expecting.

Now, TSMC, on the other hand, for me to say that TSMC is more important and maybe primed to be the better business,

is really predicated on Nvidia also continuing to be a really important business and doing really, really well.

If Nvidia really strikes out and as a business we see things start to come unraveled, TSMC is going to suck.

It's not going to be good.

But I think what we're starting to see is other businesses are starting to show

that there is a path forward to build AI.

All roads don't necessarily have to lead to CUDA and Nvidia.

It's about a year ago that DeepSeek, the big thing happened there that rattled the Western AI capital markets, when we saw that there is a path to build really good, efficient

AI and LLMs, they can go beneath CUDA.

You don't have to necessarily use CUDA to build those systems.