Nvidia Just Paid $20b for a Company That Missed Its Revenue Target by 75%
Key topics
Nvidia's $20 billion acquisition of Groq, a company that whiffed its revenue target by a whopping 75%, has sparked heated debate about the tech giant's growing monopoly and the regulators who let it slide. While some commenters lamented the stifling of innovation, others pointed out the hypocrisy in criticizing Nvidia when other tech behemoths, like Google, have also dodged antitrust repercussions. The discussion devolved into a cynical consensus that regulatory capture is alive and well, with some wryly noting that "two wrongs don't make a right." As the conversation unfolded, it became clear that this acquisition is just the latest flashpoint in a broader debate about the unchecked power of Big Tech.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
25m
Peak period
109
0-3h
Avg / period
17.8
Based on 160 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Dec 27, 2025 at 11:47 AM EST
6d ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Dec 27, 2025 at 12:12 PM EST
25m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
109 comments in 0-3h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Dec 29, 2025 at 1:36 PM EST
4d ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
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.
sorry, not corruption! retainer fees and timely stock purchases. different thing!
Trump on the other hand is completely open about this. He even brags about it. He appoints people based on loyalty alone, not knowledge or experience. He bullies countries into compliance with mafia tactics ("appease me or else..." tariffs or even war like venezuela). It's a huge moral shift where that is no longer unthinkable. The US used to have values. It was a country that was at least trying to be the good guy.
The US used to have values. It was a country that was at least trying to be the good guy.
This really is all wrong. One might think this based on pitches from different times but all Empires are evil by their definition and America has always been that, always
Again, the problem with this train of logic is you inevitable condemn everyone and everything as evil, at which point the word completely loses its meaning. Evil is only useful as a term if there are actually things that are not evil.
America has certainly done immoral, unethical and frankly evil things. It's also done moral, beautiful and even heroic things. It's a big complicated entity made up of literally millions of people and trying to summarize it as "good or evil" is pointless.
The reason this nuance matters is that we want, need to encourage doing good and the first step to doing that is to actually be able to distinguish between good and evil.
give me a list of these “beautiful and heroic things” - very interested to read them
> We estimate that over the past two decades, USAID-funded programmes have helped prevent more than 91 million deaths globally, including 30 million deaths among children.
How about that? Or are you going to come up with some excuse that somewhere, somehow, an american also benefitted from saving all these lives and therefor it doesn't count?
[1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
However, the greatest enablement was the overblown cynicism large swaths of the american elites had towards the national proclaimed values. When you think everything is cynical even when it is not the the next step is to have governments that are completely cynical.
I'm not quite sure how to explain this very obvious point: biden and his government was not corrupt in any meaningful sense and trump and his government is extremely corrupt and pretending that they're the same is both factually wrong and has the effect of protecting trump and his corruption.
The point isn't that anyone is above reproach, the point is that all you're doing is normalizing the increased awfulness of the republican corruption. And normalizing it means that it is more likely to continue happening and less likely to be punished.
If you're supposedly unhappy about clinton "corruption" why aren't you really mad about trump?
This whole "oh everything is the same nothing can improve" attitude is literally a favored tactic of the most corrupt governments. They want you to think that way because it means they'll never be held accountable. Any time people start talking about improving things they're met with an endless deluge of "oh it's all the same nothing can change" which is, of course, a self-fulfilling prophecy.
[1] The best the fairly obvious house republican "investigation" into joe biden could manage was some vague statements about his son getting paid for having the last name biden, which may or may not be illegal, but certainly seems unethical, but more importantly, ISN'T THE SITTING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Like, it is so incredibly obvious that words fail me that the president being corrupt matters A LOT MORE than his son being corrupt. Like, a lot a lot a lot more.
> [1] The best the fairly obvious house republican "investigation" into joe biden could manage was some vague statements about his son getting paid for having the last name biden, which may or may not be illegal, but certainly seems unethical, but more importantly, ISN'T THE SITTING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Like, it is so incredibly obvious that words fail me that the president being corrupt matters A LOT MORE than his son being corrupt. Like, a lot a lot a lot more.
amazing to read this, very amazing. the echochambers people live in these days are mind-boggling. biden has been a politician for 5+ decades and you do not get to be that unless you are evil and corrupted and bought ecery fiber of your being… must be all kinds of nice living in a fantasy world you live in. trump surely will top any evil and corruption (at least in america, no contest) but saying biden is not corrupt is beyond any comprehension :) wow, just woow
Or do you only care about corruption when it's not your team?
It's fine, good even, to be unhappy with e.g, joe biden and want someone better, however you define that. It is very much not fine to not vote or vote for trump because getting trump is 1000 times worse and there is no conceivable world where electing trump leads to a better outcome for us.
Why do you think I said Biden isn't corrupt?
I'm well aware of how corrupt Democrats are. You seem unaware of how corrupt Trump is.
Also please note: i have never denied Biden's corruption. He's absolutely a slimy bastard. You can stop pretending like i said he's not corrupt.
The world is not some kind of simple morality play and your continued lack of understanding about what has actually happened in the real world is offensive.
It's not because you're ignorant, that's just mildly annoying, it's because you're so proud of your ignorance. The complete unwillingness to grow and learn and challenge your current understanding, that is what is offensive.
There's a great phrase I heard a while back, "thought terminating cliche". You just toss out these blanket statements, "all politicians are evil and corrupt" as if everyone else is supposed to just blindly believe in your assertions and stop thinking for themselves and searching for truths.
Biden did some bad things, possibly even some illegal things (mostly on the premise that every single american has done at least one illegal thing) but he's still vastly superior to trump in any metric you care to choose.
The reason this matters is because we (for now) still get a choice. Are any of the choices perfect? No, obviously not. But we can still choose the better option. We don't have to settle for the worst one.
I don't disagree that they're all corrupt bastards but come on man you cannot seriously pretend the degree of corruption is the same.
the echochamber is going nuts… look at this thread and see how many of you are saying “degree of corruption” and then think whether or not you are getting this fed like clowns from whatever fucking (“social”) media your brain is being poisoned and then start to question your life’s choices
Are you arguing that every act of corruption is of precisely equal magnitude and consequence?
Time to start working on the "there was no way we could have known!" pieces.
On the other hand, I think an advocate for greatly increased corruption might claim that corruption can't be measured at all. They might strictly use un-anchored non-metrics like "the other guy does it too", "any is too much", "omg look over there!", etc.
How do the market regulators allow that?
Same way I reckon. Both are bad.
> Funny how everyone shits on Nvidia's monopoly when we've got Google walking around after winning a monumental antitrust case regarding their Android/Chrome/Google information monopoly.
... are you implying people around here don't give google flak for monopolistic business practices? That doesn't square with my experience, here.
Oversight hearing is worth a listen to get a better idea on how the current administation is harming regulators: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NZxkvYaVuk
The US government is literally for sale. Businesses know that this window is limited and are executing antitrust manuvers left and right while they can.
So those businesses either know, or expect, that either:
a) these guidelines will be changed in a way that makes them hard or impossible to revert (i.e. through legislation or a Supreme Court judgement); or
b) there is little risk of a future change of administration.
Very few administrations do everything they theoretically could under the law and their own guidelines (even the ones that also do lots that violates both.)
Also, if they manage to reach "too big to fail" status by that point, whatever punishment will be nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
I wonder if there should be a c) There is a lack of meaningful planning beyond the current status quo.
The government has been under significant influence of corporations for a long time: this is true. But now bribes are being accepted unabashedly. Presumably, hopefully, this won't last beyond the current administration. To equate the two is dishonest.
"I prefer when we can just murder people openly in the streets with no consequences or even shame. It's hypocritical to say murder she be frowned upon and forced to be done in cover of night out of fear of reprisal."
No, what they're saying is that it has gotten so bad now that the crimes are being committed constantly and in the open with no fear or worry that anything bad will ever happen.
And you're over here being coy thinking you're so clever by ignoring the scale and long-term implications.
this is all false and coming from your own echochamber. it has always been this way, just now you read to much shit on your social media feed and getting all upset how sky is falling, democracy is dying, shit real bad now…
This sounds like a flavor of whataboutism - the baseline was bad already so let's please disregard the fact that it's worse now.
Can we at least agree: is corruption bad? If so, then isn't it of note when it becomes more widespread or to a greater severity?
AOC would not be more corrupt than Trump, and Fox News saying so wouldn't make it true
I can list other Admins as well if necessary? Trump insanity is public though, maybe we like our corruption more private, is that it?
Or, if you prefer, you can count the number of times a president has pardoned someone he openly says he doesn't know anything about. At least the previous presidents tried to make up a plausible sounding reason.
then you are talking about counting dollar amounts as if we have access to bank accounts and shit to check these “dollar amounts” to see who stole more (we don’t but I am sure you can find some stories about some made up numbers and go “here, Trump this, Clinton that, Trump > Clinton - boom)
And my fav, the “degree and magnitute” is the shit, that is also something we can scientifically measure LOL. I am left-leaning centrists, most of my friends are right-leaning and for the AOC is more corrupt than Trump so you know, whatever world you live in will define “degree and magnitude”
This is what happens when companies figure out they don’t have to buy out other companies. They just need to pay off shareholders for the right to hire key employees. Which is convenient, since the key four or five guys are usually pretty big shareholders.
I don't share your view. Groq continues to exist. Nvidia did not take any or their hardware, so the same Groq you access on OpenRouter will exist tomorrow or one year from now. If anything, they'll significantly increase their presence, since they just got $20 billion in cash.
As for Nvidia stifling innovation: one can argue that they do the opposite. They hired key personnel from Groq (including their founder and CEO, Jonnathan Ross). These people agreed to the move, presumably for the money, but most likely also because they think they can deliver even more if they have access to Nvidia's resources. So, in terms of overall innovation, it will most likely go up.
But you can say that they stifle independent innovation. Maybe, but the case for that is not that open and shut as it might seem. They entered a non-exclusive licensing agreement with Groq. Which means Groq can provide their "secret sauce" to other interested entities, maybe Apple, maybe Intel or AMD, maybe OpenAI, maybe Oracle. The number of companies who could be interested in their tech is quite high.
Or simply, Groq, with the many billions in unencumbered cash they just received will decide to go for version 2.0 of their tech, or they can significantly expand the GroqCloud. Their valuation just went from $6.5B to significantly higher than $20B. They can pursue an IPO, or they can issue debt. There are countless possibilities for Groq now.
The $20B will be paid out to investors. Maybe GroqCloud will keep $1B to keep the lights on for a few years.
You are stating this as a fact. Do you have any links?
Otherwise, the simplest interpretation is that the $20B is paid by Nvidia to Groq, the company, not the investors. I don't even think it is legally possible for Nvidia to do a deal with Groq's investors directly, rather than with Groq.
Because your argument sounds something like this: Nvidia did something (a fact), and I am sure that after that Groq will do something else (not a fact), therefore Nvidia is such a bad player. Do you consider this to be a correct argument?
All the employees who jumped ship (90%) had to be bought out, otherwise they would have a conflict of interests. The schedule is quite irrelevant. The remaining 10% also got cash. But the article is quite mum on the institutional investors. They can choose to cash out, or to keep the business running. Now that they have a lot of cash, they can choose to expand GroqCloud, or they can choose to pretend to keep the business running, just for show, to not trigger regulatory scrutiny. To claim it’s the second means you are quite confident the regulators in this administration will do their job. And prosecute Nvidia. Are you really saying that?
The linked article expects differently:
> Nvidia’s buying them with their insanely inflated war chest. They don’t want a chunk taken out of their market share. They can’t afford to take that chance. So it’s like they’re just saying: “Shut up, take the $20 billion, walk away from this project.”
How much this is true I can't really verify myself but it certainly sounds concerning.
> But you can say that they stifle independent innovation.
But this is exactly what a market watchdog is supposed to prevent. A market with one player (or two) is no market. And Groq was going in a decidedly different direction than Nvidia.
E.g. "billion is so big!", uh, I've heard of a billion before, and then comparing the value of a company to a single person's salary, as if that was very relevant.
That is who I'm writing for.
We can't work backward rationally from "this deal makes sense" and get to "here's why". Corporate acquisitions often don't work that way, even when there's no bubble. The price is often just not justified at all. By anything.
We can read the financial press, and repeat whatever they're saying. And that's kind of the tradition. You say what people are saying. But the reporters can't just write "well, acquisitions are made of batshit, so the price is very likely just capitalized testosterone." Nobody wants to read that.
That show was very on the nose about a great many things.
If you do very risky R&D in a big corpo then the risk creeps into other things: other projects might look at the R&D and say, “we will just use that when it’s done”. It’s a lazy kind of move for tech leaders to make, because it makes you look like a team player, and if the R&D goes belly up then you have someone else to blame. This ultimately leads to risky R&D in a big corpo not being compartmentalized as much as it should be. If it fails, it fails super hard with lots of fallout.
But risky R&D at a startup is compartmentalized. Nobody will say they use the output of the startup until there are signs of life, and even then healthy caution is applied.
If those things were integrated into the giant there would be political risk of it eating all of the money of the giant.
Also many of Google’s flagship products come from acquisitions. Eg Android, Docs, YouTube, their entire ad network, Firebase, DeepMind, lots more.
Which is totally fine: anyone who is a biotech investor knows this and everyone makes tons of money in this arrangement. Investors (both public and private) take on the science risk and some of the regulatory risk, and the pharmaceutical companies provide a guaranteed (big $$$) exit and take over scaling manufacturing to bring a drug to market. Most people with retirement accounts and pensions and index funds rarely touch this stuff except as a diversification strategy that pools the risky stuff to get the upside on the whole industry.
I met someone that left to go to a startup and was bought by Cadence. He did this 5 times and about 2-3 years later Cadence would buy the startup he was at. He just couldn't get away.
Not sure where the author is getting their information from but there is seemingly little correlation between the investment rounds quoted in this post and other online sources. No mention for example of the Series E that valued Groq at $6.9bn
The 6.7bn valuation is accurate though https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/groq-raises-750-mil... https://www.reuters.com/business/groq-more-than-doubles-valu...
No, we don't need to visualize that.
Doers are perpetually disliked by losers simply because they can do stuff while them can't.
It's natural that the losers' actions are aligned towards making doers disappear, but it's usually a very low level and pathetic threat to doers.
I enjoyed reading your article and hope you have more stuff coming :).
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA646N [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA646N
A stack of bills is roughly 0.5 inches. Assuming a 12-ft joist-to-joist spacing, that's 12 feet per floor \times 12 inches per foot \times 2 stacks per inch = 288 stacks per floor = $2.88M per floor since a stack of 100s is $10k
So that would be a 1,000M / 2.88M ~ 347 story building.
Or is my unit conversion wildly off from dealing with sick kids over the holidays?
A 4x for an AI cloud+infra play that targets speed and cost? Where do I send the check?
If NVIDIA believes it can take this and scale it, $20b is a no brainer.
One of them will surely be right eventually!
But because buying it helps perpetuate the hype and money cycle of the 'AI' trend for awhile longer. It may not look like it directly, but a purchase like this keeps Nvidia's stock up in the future, which is all investors care about.
Not following the core argument here. Author seems to be comparing valuation in funding rounds to revenue projections. Revenue projection was revised downward, valuation was not.
Good point about not running the proprietary models, but that doesn't preclude strategic fit with Nvidia.
If they told the investors privately then they're probably fine, but I doubt they did.
I feel like I'm missing something here…
— A motivational speaker, probably
Revenue targets are meaningless, especially in hyped fields.
Here's my take on what actually happened: https://ossa-ma.github.io/blog/groq
My understanding is Groq failed to deploy their second-gen chips on time, which caused their stock to deflate.
Groq's primary advantage over Cerebras and SambaNova, as I see it, is they don't fabricate on TSMC. That's attractive to Nvidia, who doesn't want to give up any of their datacenter GPU allocation.
It certainly isn’t a “panic” as nvidia is so flush with cash. This is a minuscule amount of money for them.
29 more comments available on Hacker News