Bros, $Tesla(TSLA.US) is still falling so much today, while $NVIDIA(NVDA.US) has stabilized at 55. Seems like it's over, I'm losing money, boss!

⚠️🔥 When I pieced together this "capital circulation diagram," I began to wonder: Is this real growth, or an illusion of self-financing?

On the surface, this is a golden age for AI.

But when I connected the flow of funds line by line, what I saw was a highly closed-loop system.

$NVIDIA(NVDA.US)

$Microsoft(MSFT.US)

$Meta Platforms(META.US)

$Oracle(ORCL.US)

$Arm(ARM.US)

$Snowflake(SNOW.US)

$Rivian Automotive(RIVN.US)

$Uber Tech(UBER.US)

$LYFT(LYFT.US)(LYFT.US)

NVIDIA invests in OpenAI.
OpenAI buys NVIDIA GPUs.
OpenAI invests in CoreWeave.
CoreWeave leases NVIDIA GPUs and sells the computing power back to OpenAI.

Microsoft invested $13 billion in OpenAI and $5 billion in Anthropic, while both are tied to Azure.
SoftBank used Arm as collateral for loans to provide $30 billion in funding for OpenAI.
Oracle is burdened with massive debt to build the Stargate supercomputer, with over half of its revenue related to OpenAI.

When I put all this on the same page, what I see is not "diversified allocation."

What I see is capital circulating and amplifying within the same ecosystem.

Every investment becomes revenue for another entity.
Every purchase is counted as revenue growth.
Every debt expansion is packaged as infrastructure development.

Valuation? $850 billion.
Price-to-sales ratio around 65x.
Currently no profit.

The question is not whether it will succeed.

The question is—whether its probability of success is sufficient to support this pricing.

History is not gentle.

Tech companies with a P/S ratio above 40x at IPO and sustained losses:

$Snowflake(SNOW.US) down 68%
$Rivian Automotive(RIVN.US) down 90%
$Uber Tech(UBER.US) down 33%
$LYFT(LYFT.US)(LYFT.US) down 50%

None of these four companies outperformed the market within 12 months.

Market share is not static either.

ChatGPT's overall market share dropped from 86.7% to 64.5% within 12 months.
Enterprise market share dropped from 50% to 27%.
Anthropic has risen to about 40%.

When competition intensifies, yet valuations expand, this is the signal I'm most wary of.

What concerns me more is the issue of asset depreciation.

If GPUs become technologically obsolete in three years, but the industry amortizes them over six years, a timing gap emerges between book profits and real capital returns.

The credit market is already speaking.

Oracle's CDS prices are rising.
CoreWeave's five-year implied default probability is at a double-digit level.

Credit instruments usually sniff out risks earlier than stocks.

I'm not saying the AI wave will end.

But when capital circulates rapidly in a closed ecosystem, and valuations are priced based on "ecosystem narratives" rather than free cash flow, I'd rather ask:

Is this genuine independent growth, or structural leverage amplification?

If everything goes smoothly, this system will reinforce itself.

If cash flow pressure hits any node, the chain reaction will be just as swift.

The probability of success implied by market pricing may be far higher than what is realistically achievable.

What I'm more concerned about now is:

When capital costs rise, depreciation is truly reflected, and competition continues to divert flows, can this cycle still be sustained?

📬 I will continue to deconstruct AI capital structures and tech valuation risks. Follow me to maintain calm judgment amidst emotional highs.