> 1. The whole Burry argument is that AI hardware becomes obsolete faster. If aux hardware can be reused, that works against the argument. Burry’s main argumen

> 1. The whole Burry argument is that AI hardware becomes obsolete faster. If aux hardware can be reused, that works against the argument. Burry’s main argument is depreciation is being understated and the capex vintages will not be paid off before they are essentially useless. This can happen whether or not aux is reused. > Total consumption drives more demand for the already supply constrained hardware. Demand is the wrong metric. Only number that matters is whether AI attributable revenue will be sufficient to pay back enough of each successive capex vintage (e.g. 750B this year, 1T next year, 1.2T in 2028) so that hyperscalers and neoclouds can either self-fund or continue to issue debt as bond markets are already straining and tax-payer backed sovereign debt is providing a high baseline. Otherwise they downgrade capex projections and the bubble pops. Expensive compute needs expensive inference to justify 30-40B/year/GW of compute. There are many reasons why frontier API pricing which is what the industry is based on may not persist. It is also almost certainly the case that 2026 is the worst year of supply and demand mismatch to allow for 80%+ margins. HBF next year has the potential to single handedly pop the DRAM spot bubble. > Can AI hardware market go bust? Sure it can. This is the bear thesis. It is not that AI will crash or be useless. > But being early is the same as being wrong in the investment market. When do you predict the bust to be? Q4 27-Q2 28 is when the bill becomes due at the latest. There are sufficient financial levers left to buy time without returns until then. > Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Meta are all buying as many Nvidia GPUs as they possibly can. All of these companies have rock solid revenue streams and can easily swallow 500B of capex devaluation over time. Their buying of Nvidia today is not necessarily the indicator you are implying as there are strong competitive reasons to make the game more expensive for everyone else.