3 ms·
The issue here wasn't whether they should have known, but that they (apparently) did know and didn't disclose it. Whether NVIDIA has a duty to know is not at is
by paulgb 5y ago
The issue here wasn't whether they should have known, but that they (apparently) did know and didn't disclose it. Whether NVIDIA has a duty to know is not at issue here, since they did:
> NVIDIA had information, however, that this increase in gaming sales was driven in significant part by cryptomining
Color me a little surprised that this is what SEC's Crypto Asset is spending resources on when there is such a dumpster fire of obvious fraud in other areas of crypto (looking at you, public mining companies), but I suppose NVIDIA's upswing did catch a lot of retail investors.
- jonathaneunice 5y agoYou're absolutely right this is the least of the crypto dumpster fires / fraud situations. But the official disclosures of public equity firms is one of the lampposts the SEC's clearly mandated to look under. In fact, crypto is essentially immaterial here. If NVIDIA knew that a huge part of their GPUs were being used for the new, highly-volatile fad of Quantum Fubaring instead of the gaming market NVIDIA'd previously disclosed was the market target, the SEC would still have the right and responsibility to ding them for deceptive or insufficient disclosures.