In the rapidly evolving world of artificial intelligence, a handful of tech titans are weaving an intricate web of multi-billion-dollar deals that resemble a closed-loop economy more than a competitive market. Companies like Nvidia, OpenAI, and Oracle are at the center, channeling trillions in capital among themselves in ways that amplify their dominance while sidelining potential challengers. This “circular investment network” isn’t just boosting stock prices—it’s creating a unipolar competitive landscape where innovation flows through a narrow funnel, making it nearly impossible for newcomers to break in.
At its core, this network operates like a self-sustaining machine. Take Nvidia’s planned investment of up to $100 billion in OpenAI, announced in September 2025. In return, OpenAI commits to purchasing vast quantities of Nvidia’s AI chips to power its data centers. But the loop doesn’t stop there. OpenAI has inked a $300 billion, five-year cloud computing deal with Oracle, which then turns around and spends billions acquiring Nvidia GPUs to fulfill that capacity. Meanwhile, Nvidia holds a 7% stake in CoreWeave, an AI infrastructure provider that OpenAI relies on for additional compute, with contracts potentially worth $22.4 billion. Add in OpenAI’s parallel deal with AMD—tens of billions for chips, plus warrants for up to 10% of AMD’s shares—and the circle expands. Money invested by one player funds purchases from another, inflating revenues and valuations in a feedback loop.
This isn’t isolated; it’s systemic. In 2025 alone, OpenAI has orchestrated deals totaling around $1 trillion in AI infrastructure commitments, spanning Nvidia, AMD, Oracle, and CoreWeave. Nvidia’s market cap has ballooned to over $4.5 trillion, fueled by these interlocking arrangements. Oracle’s stock surged $244 billion in a single day after announcing its OpenAI partnership, while AMD gained $80 billion briefly on its deal news. These aren’t arm’s-length transactions—they’re symbiotic, where each company’s success props up the others. As one analyst noted, it’s “vendor financing” reminiscent of the dot-com era, when companies like Cisco funded their customers to buy their own gear, masking weak underlying demand.
The result? A unipolar landscape where power concentrates in a select few. In geopolitics, unipolarity means one dominant force shapes the global order; in AI, it translates to a market where Nvidia controls 94% of the GPU segment essential for training models. OpenAI, backed by Microsoft (which has poured $19 billion since 2019), leverages this to scale ChatGPT and beyond, while Oracle and CoreWeave provide the plumbing. New players face insurmountable barriers: building AI infrastructure demands gigawatts of power—equivalent to 20 nuclear reactors for OpenAI’s deals alone—and costs running into the tens of billions per gigawatt. Without access to this network, startups can’t compete for compute resources, talent, or funding. Venture capital firm Air Street Capital’s 2025 report highlights how these loops intensify ahead of earnings, locking out external innovators.
Why does this stifle capital flow to newcomers? The circularity creates network effects on steroids. Investors flock to proven winners, knowing their bets recycle within the ecosystem. Nvidia’s $1 billion in AI startup investments in 2024 mostly funnels back into its orbit. For instance, even as Oracle partners with Nvidia, it’s deploying 50,000 AMD GPUs through 2027, hedging but still within the club. Outsiders, meanwhile, struggle with razor-thin margins—Oracle reportedly lost nearly $100 million on Nvidia chip rentals in three months ending August 2025. This concentration risks antitrust scrutiny and echoes historical bubbles: Nortel and Cisco’s round-tripping in the 1990s ended in tears when demand faltered.
Defenders argue it’s necessary infrastructure buildout, not a bubble. OpenAI’s CFO Sarah Friar calls it partnerships for massive-scale needs, not circularity. True breakthroughs—in medicine, materials science—require this compute intensity. Yet skeptics warn of over-reliance: if OpenAI’s path to profitability (with $4.3 billion in H1 2025 sales but $2.5 billion burn) stumbles, the chain could unravel. MIT’s 2025 research shows 95% of organizations see zero ROI from generative AI, questioning the frenzy.
Looking ahead, this unipolar setup could accelerate AI progress but at the cost of diversity. Regulators may intervene, as U.S.-China tensions heighten supply chain risks. For now, the circular network ensures capital stays trapped in the elite circle, leaving new players on the sidelines. In AI’s gold rush, the shovels—and the mines—are owned by the same few hands.
Leave a Reply