Jason Hall

I'll talk about that why, but before I get to it, I just want to point out that it's important as individual investors, we shouldn't conflate our

goals and incentives with Nvidia's incentive to either invest in or prop up CoreWeave, whichever it proves to be down the road.

Two things can be true.

If AI expansion and proliferation does continue to happen,

to be a need for this infrastructure.

The build-out is going to need to continue.

Companies like CoreWeave are really facing serious liquidity crises in the meantime.

I've spent 15 years following big trends in energy and housing.

If there's an important phrase that I think investors should absolutely sear into their psyches, it's this, secular trend, cyclical demand.

A company has to survive weakening near-term stuff to profit from a decade of massive growth.

And we're going to see ups and downs for demand across the AI cycle.

It is a reality.

Now, does that mean Nvidia is putting good money after bad with CoreWeave right now?

I think that almost doesn't matter to a large degree, because Nvidia is so critical.

It's the hub, and there's all these spokes coming off of it on the wheel of the AI build-out that's happening right now.

And it is a provider of capital in this current space.

whether it turns out to be a profitable deal, has a lot less to do with CoreWeave and its execution with some really big things that are happening more broadly.

CoreWeave just has to survive, and maybe it has to stay on the NVIDIA purse strings for a little bit longer to get there.

Austin, I didn't say I did it well for 15 years.

That could also disincentivize innovation down the road, too, and you end up with the Intel problem.