Is Circular Finance a Red Flag?
Posted3 months agoActive3 months ago
Otherstory
skepticalnegative
Debate
40/100
Circular FinanceVenture CapitalFinancial Manipulation
Key topics
Circular Finance
Venture Capital
Financial Manipulation
All these deals lately seem to be a way of circulating money back to the investing company and not actually in new growth.
The post questions whether 'circular finance' deals, where money is circulated back to the investing company rather than funding new growth, are a red flag, sparking discussion on the legitimacy and impact of such financial practices.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Light discussionFirst comment
8m
Peak period
5
0-3h
Avg / period
1.8
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Oct 6, 2025 at 9:07 AM EDT
3 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Oct 6, 2025 at 9:15 AM EDT
8m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
5 comments in 0-3h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Oct 8, 2025 at 1:29 AM EDT
3 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45490992Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 3:50:08 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
We're watching a cycle where companies raise, reinvest, and report "growth" that's mostly internal money circulation — cloud credits, infra leases, or pre-paid AI capacity deals that move cash between subsidiaries or friendly vendors. None of it produces new productivity; it just inflates asset books.
Big Tech's current AI spending is a perfect example. Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Meta will spend around $364 billion on infrastructure this year — roughly double their historical capex ratios. Yet revenue growth in their core businesses is slowing. They're scaling faster than they can monetize, essentially subsidizing the appearance of progress.
The real red flag is cultural: when companies optimize for spend instead of outcomes, engineering starts following the same pattern — more abstraction, more compute, less efficiency. Eventually, both finance and technology hit physical limits.
If you're interested, I broke down the numbers and engineering side of this dynamic here: https://techtrenches.substack.com/p/big-techs-364-billion-be...
The circular investments that would worry me are when the investment returns as advertising spend and other costs that don’t improve the product.
Recent headlines grabbing deals are between pretty savvy companies and none of them appear on the verge of bankruptcy. There doesn’t appear to be an air of desperation about them.
They don’t look like shuffling deck chairs so much as negotiated procurement.
Ie selling or leveraging when it makes sense. You can always hop on later.
I was quite young when the dot com bubble happened and didn't grasp the whole insanity of it, then witnessed the financial crisis (while also working in finance - quite interesting times), and now I can fully appreciate Sir Isaac Newton statement "I can calculate the motions of the planets, but I cannot calculate the madness of men" - which he made after he lost a fortune in the South Sea Company Bubble !
In theory, expect even higher amounts of "virtual" money being circulated (stock options deals), until people stop believing in it.
It's the time you can be certain that NASDAQ will go only up.
Until it doesn't.
Then we will learn how much money came from banks financing either directly those GPU deals, or indirectly (energy, infra etc).
Lots of depreciation will happen.
Then banks will start posting huge lossess, and then FED will need to rescue it all, because it goes on a spiral and can end up worse if they don't do anything.