14 September 2026
Heard In AI

NVIDIA's $96.2 billion quarter, and the question of who financed the demand

NVIDIA reported $96.2 billion in quarterly revenue and guided to $108 billion for the current quarter. On Moonshots with Peter Diamandis, the panel split over what the number proves: Dave Blundin sees a company nobody can avoid, Alex wants to know how much of the demand NVIDIA itself financed, and Salim Ismail would prefer slower growth that markets have time to correct.

A briefing reports one development when it happens. We correct or clarify it later; a new development gets a new briefing. How our formats work

Peter Diamandis opened the panel with a single figure. NVIDIA had just booked "$96.2 billion in revenue in a single quarter" — "more than the GDP of the majority of the countries on the planet," he said — up 106% from a year earlier, with guidance for another roughly 10% in the current quarter, about $108 billion. "For context, that is more than a billion dollars per day."

The company's results announcement on August 26 covers the quarter that ended on July 26, 2026. Revenue rose 18% from the previous quarter and 106% from a year earlier. Data Center — the chips and systems sold to companies building and running AI models — accounted for $89.0 billion of that, up 117% year over year. GAAP gross margin, the share of revenue left after the direct cost of making what was sold, was 75%. Net income came to roughly $59.7 billion. The forecast of $108 billion for the current quarter, plus or minus 2%, excludes any assumed Data Center compute revenue from China. During the quarter NVIDIA returned about $26 billion to shareholders through dividends and share repurchases.

Diamandis added the longer view: Jensen Huang's guidance for 70% growth in 2028, against a Wall Street consensus of 44%, and Huang's description of the frontier AI labs as "the first generation of startups that needed tens of billions of dollars of compute to get to their product."

The case that nothing here is fragile

Dave Blundin took the sustainability question first and answered it in two parts. NVIDIA has vulnerabilities, he said, "but at the same time, they're going to be sold out for as far as the eye can see no matter what." Everyone training neural networks has to use NVIDIA; by his estimate that work supplies 90% of the revenue and 95% of the profits. He put the gross margins on those revenues at 80 to 85% — higher than the 75% NVIDIA reported — and concluded that "the profitability of this company has never been seen before on the face of the earth."

The vulnerability he named is manufacturing. NVIDIA designs its chips but does not make them: TSMC is, in his words, "their one and only manufacturer of everything they sell," with roughly a third of TSMC's output going to NVIDIA, another third to Apple and the rest of the world sharing what is left. Building its own fabrication plants, Blundin argued, would have to be done "very quietly and sneakily," because that is not a boat you rock casually.

He also described how the money changes behavior around him. Meeting portfolio companies weekly, he hears about appointments with a manufacturer in Vermont, or with J.P. Morgan. His reaction: why are you meeting with anyone other than Jensen, one of the other giants or one of their satellites? "The amount of money pouring through just that funnel dwarfs the entire rest of the economy." If you are not in that flow of conversations, he said, "you're not in the most relevant conversation in the history of the world."

The elephant Alex wants measured

Alex, a regular on the panel, began by disclaiming the strongest version of the worry: "I'd be the last person to suggest that this is one big wash trade" — a trade in which the same parties move goods or money in a loop to manufacture the appearance of activity. What he wants instead is a measurement. He wonders "the extent to which the financial markets have fully priced in NVIDIA's financing of their customers," and would like a clearer distinction between demand NVIDIA has funded and demand it has not.

The distinction matters because a supplier that lends a customer the money to buy its products is recording sales it paid for itself. If a disproportionate share of the demand turns out to be "directly or indirectly backstopped or financed or credited by NVIDIA through one or more intermediaries," Alex said, "then I think that starts to look a little bit too bubbly, which I'm not thrilled with at all." What he does not want is to discover in two or three years that a large part of the demand at the infrastructure layer had been "artificially propped up through financial engineering." As he put it: "I'd like to see no hiccups in this singularity."

Even so, his forecast was not a crash. If some quantum of the demand does turn out to be inflated, he expects "at most a mini-winter," because in his view compute is substituting for real estate, human labor and other raw inputs as the basic substrate of civilization. He offered the doubt as a feeling rather than a finding, and said so: seeing growth numbers like these next to headlines about NVIDIA financing data-center deployments leaves him "a little bit of a tickle at this point to the back of my mind."

Two kinds of circle

Closing the segment, Alex separated the loops. In one, company A sells goods to company B and company B sells goods back to company A — call it an income-statement circular economy. You still do not want trades engineered to inflate revenue, he said, but from a bubble perspective that is the more healthful form. In the other, company A uses not its income statement but its balance sheet — private credit, loans and the like — to finance company B's purchase of company A's goods. An income statement records sales and costs; a balance sheet records what a company owns and owes. Lending a buyer the purchase price turns one into the other.

Blundin accepted that the AI economy looks circular — Jensen puts money into data centers, the data centers buy chips, the chips provide inference to the companies building on top — and argued it is not a trap. "Every economy is circular in nature," he said; dollars move in a circle, euros move in a circle. What has changed is that the circle is tightening around a new economy that "cares very little about the legacy economy." His illustration was a civilization on Alpha Centauri that discovers superintelligence and builds an enormous economy for itself: it would not bother trading with Earth, too far away and too slow.

His test for whether outside revenue arrives is drugs. He said a brother of his who works with Fidelity, Ameriprise and UBS had told him a year ago that AI would not really have hit until he saw it show up at Fidelity, and has since changed his mind. Blundin's argument is that Ozempic and Mounjaro together are bigger than all AI inference combined, from a single line of drug discovery; five or ten more such discoveries, which he expects soon, would send revenue back into the AI economy that dwarfs the legacy world. Diamandis offered a parallel from the early internet: Google's AdSense and AdWords looked like a modest new thing and ended up absorbing nearly the whole advertising industry's revenue.

Salim Ismail would rather it went slower

Diamandis put the investor's dilemma to Salim Ismail — Ray Dalio and others posting on X that they are out of the markets, price-to-earnings ratios off the charts, and at the same time this growth. Ismail called it a classic dilemma and said he hedges. He agreed the circular revenue is concerning, and was blunt about why: if the whole thing collapsed, "we're in a dead period for a period of time, and that just slows civilization down dramatically."

His preference is structural. "You're better off having steady, regular growth where the market has time to self-correct into new structures. And we don't have that right now. Things are kind of going vertical." He read NVIDIA's recent moves as an attempt to stop being only a chip company and become "literally an operating system for the whole of intelligence" — citing a reported acquisition of Hugging Face, which the panel noted is still a rumor, and comparing it to Microsoft buying GitHub for $7.5 billion, a deal he said finance staff nearly killed over the lack of assets until Satya Nadella argued they were buying the loyalty of 30 million developers. The bigger risk to markets, in Ismail's view, lies elsewhere: money printing, and what is happening in bond markets and Japan.

That leaves Alex's request unanswered. Speaking as a shareholder of the entire market through low-cost broad index funds, and not offering investment advice, he said he does not feel he has "tremendous visibility" into which of the two circles the current numbers describe.

Share this article

Go to the original

Sources & further reading

  1. 01

Connected ideas and articles

From the conversation

Podcast episodes

Article history

Updates to this article

Tags

OpenAI's Jalapeño chip has the Moonshots panel asking: could it sell compute to rivals?

On Moonshots EP #284, the panel read out the performance figures OpenAI published for Jalapeño, the inference chip it built with Broadcom, and argued that inference is moving off NVIDIA. One panelist went further, imagining an "OpenAI Compute" cloud that rents capacity to competitors — possibly even hosting an Anthropic model. Dave Blundin explained why CUDA no longer locks buyers in at inference time, and why NVIDIA's next defense is the networking between chips.

6 min read

Ed Zitron's 2027 forecast: OpenAI runs out of cash, and the losses spread

On The Diary of a CEO, critic Ed Zitron laid out a sequence he expects to start with OpenAI failing to raise its next round and end in ordinary retirement accounts. He traces the chain from a delayed stock-market listing to SoftBank's paper holdings, cloud growth forecasts and the concentrated US indexes — while Amazon's own filings and Andy Jassy's shareholder letter offer a different account of why the spending is happening.

8 min read

Altman says economic inertia slowed AI's impact. His podcast panel disputes the cause

On Moonshots with Peter Diamandis, the panel watched Sam Altman explain that he expected GPT-4 to put software businesses up for grabs far sooner than it did, and that the economy's inertia has made the transition "smoother and slower." Salim Ismail blamed institutions that move at a different speed from the technology, Alex pointed instead at the abstraction layers of the economy and prescribed vertical integration, and Emad Mostaque objected that the models simply were not good enough until recently.

6 min read

Keen bets the last AI company standing will be Chinese

On The Diary of a CEO, economist Steve Keen argued that the only thing likely to slow the race for frontier AI is its sheer cost and the physical resources it needs — and that the company left standing will be Chinese. Other speakers pushed back with military necessity and the long unprofitable years of earlier internet giants, and Keen pointed to the recent Kimi release as his example.

5 min read