NVIDIA Sued For Misrepresenting and Misappropriating $1 Billion Of Cryptocurrency Product

erek

erek

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
10,894
Busted! Bad operations!!

"Former employees from China and Russia are crucial in assessing whether NVIDIA did really mislead investors due to the fact that cryptocurrency mining operations were generally located in these countries due to low energy costs.

CRYPTOCURRENCY-BITCOIN-MINING-GPU.jpg
Mining Ethereum using GPUs.
The complainants allege that NVIDIA's management misled investors in the entire affair primarily"

https://regmedia.co.uk/2020/05/15/nvidiashareholdersuit.pdf
 
How would nVidia know where and what their cards are being used for unless they do a hell of a lot more tracking than they say they do. They sell chips to OEM’s and they then sell the cards. The only cards nVidia are directly responsible for would be the ones they sell direct. I’m betting this is a front to get information on who they have been selling to so they can get records as part of a larger investigation.
 
Lakados said:
How would nVidia know where and what their cards are being used for unless they do a hell of a lot more tracking than they say they do. They sell chips to OEM’s and they then sell the cards. The only cards nVidia are directly responsible for would be the ones they sell direct. I’m betting this is a front to get information on who they have been selling to so they can get records as part of a larger investigation.
Click to expand...

Nvidia does lots of market research to get an accurate picture of who is buying their products and how their cards are being used. The information they gather from research guides the type of cards they design and the prices they release them at. GPUs became way more expensive because of the cryptomining trends. Nvidia thought they could push things even further with the 20XX series, trying to justify it by the addition of RTX. But it didn't work for Nvidia. The lawsuit alleges Nvidia has a huge backstock of unsold GPUs.


Examples from the lawsuit filing:

For example, in response to an analyst question during NVIDIA’s August 10, 2017 earnings call asking how Huang planned to manage the volatility of the cryptocurrency market, Huang told investors that “our strategy is to stay very, very close to the market. We understand its dynamics really well . . . . We stay very close to the market. We know its every single move and we know its dynamics.”
Click to expand...

1. Huang Maintained Access to NVIDIA’s Centralized Sales Database, Which Reflected Surging Demand for GeForce GPUs from Crypto-Miners
Click to expand...

86. FE 1 described the U.S. executive team as “obsessed” with this sales data, which explicitly identified and quantified crypto-miners’ burgeoning demand for GeForce GPUs throughout the Class Period. FE 1 reported that, throughout 2017, this data reflected that 60% to 70% of NVIDIA’s GeForce revenue in its most critical market, China, came from sales to crypto-miners. Given the significance of the China market to NVIDIA’s Gaming revenues and overall performance, these figures revealed that approximately 25% to 35% of NVIDIA’s worldwide GeForce Gaming-segment revenues were coming from sales to crypto-miners just in China.
Click to expand...

Huang also explicitly discussed the effect of cryptocurrency-related demand on GeForce sales. FE 2 stated that Huang brought up miners’ preference for GeForce GPUs during at least two different Quarterly Business Reviews at NVIDIA’s Santa Clara headquarters in 2017, which FE 2 attended with Huang and other business unit, sales, marketing, and product management leaders. Specifically, Huang acknowledged that NVIDIA could not get the cryptocurrency miners to buy the professional and more expensive Quadro and Tesla cards because miners did not care about “what the pro card stands for” and were only interested in raw cost and “cranking out algorithms at the lowest cost.” FE 2 also recalled that when Huang stated that miners were buying GeForce GPUs instead of the professional cards, the information came as no surprise to FE 2 or any of the other NVIDIA executives in the room. 3. Huang Received Weekly “Top 5” Emails Highlighting the Impact of CryptoRelated Demand on GeForce Sales Around the World 94. Throughout the Class Period, Huang also received continuous reports of crypto-related GeForce sales in an internal reporting system that he had created called “Top 5” emails.
Click to expand...

90. FE 5 stated that crypto-mining and its effect on GeForce demand was a “hot topic” at these meetings for different regions during the second half of 2017 and first half of 2018. FE 5 gave the Director of Sales for Europe as an example of one executive who discussed crypto-related demand for GeForce GPUs at these gatherings. Attendees also discussed forecasting predictions, including forecasts of GPU demand from cryptocurrency miners. FE 5 recalled that, beginning in the summer of 2018, the Quarterly Business Review meetings involved discussion of the decline in mining-related demand, which was negatively affecting GeForce sales. FE 5 explained that the sales data and forecasts presented at the regional meetings, including cryptocurrency-related demand, was then sent directly to Huang.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
So I read most of the allegations in that lawsuit and I have to wonder, how fucking dumb were the plaintiffs? Everyone knew NVIDIAs stock price and sales were temporarily surging because of the cryptocurrency boom at the time, how did these retards not know this? Look at what they claim in their lawsuit:

NVIDIA’s capacity to easily absorb volatility in crypto-related demand; and (4) Defendants’ ability to manage fluctuations in inventory resulting from crypto-related demand volatility. These materially false and misleading statements caused NVIDIA’s common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices. Before Defendants revealed the truth through the disclosures on August 16, 2018, and November 15, 2018, the market believed NVIDIA’s statements to investors. The disclosure of previously misrepresented and concealed facts about these and other matters caused the price of NVIDIA’s common stock to decline markedly, wiping out billions of dollars in shareholder value.
Click to expand...

So they're claiming they lost lots of money in stock valuation because of the cryptobust. The problem is NVIDIA stock is higher now than it ever was:

56c5e365b26136fcf3062d9ba9ee5412.png

If NVIDIA misrepresented the value of their datacenter, AI, gaming and other segments, then why is the stock value still climbing with revenue holding? The lawsuit even mentions that as part of this Class lawsuit, that individual losses are so insignificant that it wouldn't be worth it for them to file a lawsuit on their own so these guys are doing it on their behalf. What they want as relief is the best part:

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272883 Case No. 4:18-cv-07669-HSG FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS XII.PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Lead Plaintiffs pray for relief and judgment as follows: A.Declaring the action to be a proper class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the Class defined herein; B.Awarding all damages and other remedies available under the Exchange Act in favor of Lead Plaintiffs and all members of the Class against Defendants in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest thereon; C.Awarding Lead Plaintiffs and the Class their reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including attorneys’ fees and expert fees; and D.Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Click to expand...

This is nothing but an attempt at a money grab and hopefully it gets shot down right away.
 
Last edited:
Lakados said:
How would nVidia know where and what their cards are being used for unless they do a hell of a lot more tracking than they say they do. They sell chips to OEM’s and they then sell the cards. The only cards nVidia are directly responsible for would be the ones they sell direct. I’m betting this is a front to get information on who they have been selling to so they can get records as part of a larger investigation.
Click to expand...

The suit also claims that Nvidia's GeForce Experience software reports to them what Nvidia GPUs are being used for, and that 60% of GPUs sold during the period the suit is concerned with were used for crypto-mining.

13. In addition to this deluge of sales figures and reports from the field, internal technical data confirmed that crypto-miners had overrun the market for GeForce GPUs. NVIDIA used a software program bundled with its GeForce GPUs to track how consumers were using their GeForce GPUs throughout the Class Period. The program, called “GeForce Experience,” transmitted usage data from users back to NVIDIA, enabling the Company to determine whether consumers were using each GPU for gaming or for mining. As one former manager put it, “We actually know this data.” Just two months before the Class Period began, when an analyst asked how NVIDIA “pars[ed]” its sales data, Kress confirmed her own access to this information and that NVIDIA used the GeForce Experience data to identify to whether sales were going to gamers, stating, “we can actually see [users] through our GeForce Experience . . . . So we have an ability to actually look to say, ‘Yes, the intended use of those overall gaming platforms are actually being used for gaming.’” NVIDIA’s former senior marketing executive from the European division explained that, indeed, the GeForce Experience usage data was maintained in a central database and reported every month directly to Huang, who personally reviewed the data for each region. The same executive, who saw the monthly reports, stated that the usage data reflected that over 60% of GeForce sales went to miners during the Class Period—a figure in line with what the centralized sales database reflected was happening in NVIDIA’s largest and most important market, China.

14. As miners’ ravenous appetite for GeForce GPUs became clear internally, Fisher told his team that NVIDIA’s growing reliance on fickle crypto-driven demand was “dangerous.” Yet his warning, while prescient, did nothing to quell NVIDIA’s enthusiasm for the revenues that crypto-mining was generating for the Gaming segment. To the contrary, Defendants not only knew about, but encouraged large-scale crypto-mining with GeForce GPUs throughout the Class Period. In fact, the China presentation that Fisher had commissioned detailed NVIDIA’s plan to directly target the largest miners in China, going so far as to list ten large crypto-mining operations by name next to their contact information and projected monthly demand in thousands of units. Meanwhile, at the quarterly sales meetings, Huang and other top executives discussed business opportunities targeting large commercial miners, including a significant deal in 2017 with Genesis Mining, a leading crypto-mining operation based in Europe.
Click to expand...
 
Tsumi said:
So when can I sue Elon Musk for tweeting that Tesla stock prices were too high?
Click to expand...

I don't know if that opinion counts as a report on the company's finances, operation, or prospects. Stock market sites also opine that Tesla's stock is overvalued.

But when Musk exaggeratedly claimed that Tesla had already secured funding for taking Tesla private, he was investigated by the SEC, he and Tesla were both fined $20 million, and he was forced to temporarily step-down from chairperson of Tesla's board of directors.
 
Last edited:
Delicieuxz said:
The suit also claims that Nvidia's GeForce Experience software reports to them what Nvidia GPUs are being used for, and that 60% of GPUs sold during the period the suit is concerned with were used for crypto-mining.
Click to expand...
But geforce experience isn’t mandatory and would it even be installed on a crypto mining rig?
I find it interesting this lawsuit pops up in Russia and China just as their respective authorities are looking into how the coin markets are being used to launder money in the wake of yet another series of investor scams and Ponzi schemes.
 
Not fluent in lawyer lingo, are these guys upset about their stock performance in a time frame of 2017-2018? If so damn thing is $300+ now...

About the GeForce experience and mining,no. Never installed or required it for them rigs, eventually moved off of windows completely with some of the more miner centric OSs.

About the 60% of the cards were used for mining. It would have to be determining solely for mining vs. people mining on the side with their gaming rig. Quite a few people with gaming PCs we’re trying g to figure out how to mine on the side or even tested it for short term.
 
I can't see the plaintiffs winning this frivolous suit unless the judge is on the payroll.
 
Last edited:
zehoo said:
I can't see the plaintiffs winning this frivolous suit unless the judge is on the payroll.
Click to expand...
i think their hope is that nvidia justs says fk it and throw money at them to make it disappear like AMD did with the bulldozer crap even though they likely could of won.
 
Hakaba said:
Not fluent in lawyer lingo, are these guys upset about their stock performance in a time frame of 2017-2018? If so damn thing is $300+ now...
Click to expand...

Trial lawyers will look for literally anything to launch these lawsuits.

Regarding people who are upset about stock performance, you have to remember that there are many types of investor. One of these types would be “trend chasers” who will temporarily invest in a company to catch a trend and sell in the short term. It doesn’t matter what Nvidia’s price is today because they didn’t intend to hold it. They might have invested at, say, $280 during the crypto boom, and then sold it under $200 when it dropped and are now looking for a lawyer to dig up any reason they can find to try to get some money out of it. That’s why you’re seeing “ownership period” cited on the lawsuit, “for people who incurred losses in such and such a timeline”.
 
5150Joker said:
So I read most of the allegations in that lawsuit and I have to wonder, how fucking dumb were the plaintiffs? Everyone knew NVIDIAs stock price and sales were temporarily surging because of the cryptocurrency boom at the time, how did these retards not know this?
Click to expand...

If Nvidia was misrepresenting their sales to their investors by telling them that the high-demand was from gamers and not crypto-miners, then it doesn't matter if the investors knew it or not. What Nvidia would have done in that case would be illegal. Even if investors lost nothing, Nvidia would still have violated the Securities Act by misrepresenting their business, and would be subject to consequences.

The investors allege that “NVIDIA lied about its cryptocurrency earnings to avoid [a] stock crash,” positing that “the steep falls [in NVIDIA’s stock price] [we]re a strong incentive for Nvidia to mask large fluctuations in revenue”.

If you're an investor who is not necessarily tech-savvy but who is doing some research into what informed sources are saying, the insistence of the billion-dollar, industry-leader tech company and manufacturer about their own sales probably carries a lot of weight. And you might be inclined to believe the tech company over some forum posts, feeling reassured in the knowledge that it is illegal for the tech company and manufacturer to misrepresent their business to you, knowing that the tech company and manufacturer is fully aware of this fact.

If NVIDIA misrepresented the value of their datacenter, AI, gaming and other segments, then why is the stock value still climbing with revenue holding?
Click to expand...

But during the period the lawsuit is concerning, Nvidia's was the worst-performing stock:

Chipmaker Nvidia plunges after missing on revenue and guidance
Nvidia’s 54 percent plunge this quarter makes it the biggest loser in S&P 500

I'm sure quite a few people sold at a loss during that period. Research for the lawsuit would have started back then and so lawyer and other expenses would date back to then. So, regardless of how the stock is doing now, the alleged misinformation from Nvidia would have caused damages. And regardless of how the stock is now doing, misrepresenting a business to investors is still fraud.

The lawsuit even mentions that as part of this Class lawsuit, that individual losses are so insignificant that it wouldn't be worth it for them to file a lawsuit on their own so these guys are doing it on their behalf. What they want as relief is the best part:
1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272883 Case No. 4:18-cv-07669-HSG FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS XII.PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Lead Plaintiffs pray for relief and judgment as follows: A.Declaring the action to be a proper class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the Class defined herein; B.Awarding all damages and other remedies available under the Exchange Act in favor of Lead Plaintiffs and all members of the Class against Defendants in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest thereon; C.Awarding Lead Plaintiffs and the Class their reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including attorneys’ fees and expert fees; and D.Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

To be honest, I don't see an issue with the damage requests. That looks like standard phrasing, to me.
 
Last edited:
Delicieuxz said:
If Nvidia was misrepresenting their sales to their investors by telling them that the high-demand was from gamers and not crypto-miners, then it doesn't matter if the investors knew it or not. What Nvidia would have done in that case would be illegal. Even if investors lost nothing, Nvidia would still have violated the Securities Act by misrepresenting their business, and would be subject to consequences.

The investors allege that “NVIDIA lied about its cryptocurrency earnings to avoid [a] stock crash,” positing that “the steep falls [in NVIDIA’s stock price] [we]re a strong incentive for Nvidia to mask large fluctuations in revenue”.

If you're an investor who is not necessarily tech-savvy but who is doing some research into what informed sources are saying, the insistence of the billion-dollar, industry-leader tech company and manufacturer about their own sales probably carries a lot of weight. And you might be inclined to believe the tech company over some forum posts, feeling reassured in the knowledge that it is illegal for the tech company and manufacturer to misrepresent their business to you, knowing that the tech company and manufacturer is fully aware of this fact.



But during the period the lawsuit is concerning, Nvidia's was the worst-performing stock:

Chipmaker Nvidia plunges after missing on revenue and guidance
Nvidia’s 54 percent plunge this quarter makes it the biggest loser in S&P 500

I'm sure quite a few people sold at a loss during that period. Research for the lawsuit would have started back then and so lawyer and other expenses would date back to then. So, regardless of how the stock is doing now, the alleged misinformation from Nvidia would have caused damages. And regardless of how the stock is now doing, misrepresenting a business to investors is still fraud.



To be honest, I don't see an issue with the damage requests. That looks like standard phrasing, to me.
Click to expand...

Even then it is still a management estimate, if there is adequate disclosures they got nothing here.
 
Delicieuxz said:
If Nvidia was misrepresenting their sales to their investors by telling them that the high-demand was from gamers and not crypto-miners, then it doesn't matter if the investors knew it or not. What Nvidia would have done in that case would be illegal. Even if investors lost nothing, Nvidia would still have violated the Securities Act by misrepresenting their business, and would be subject to consequences.

The investors allege that “NVIDIA lied about its cryptocurrency earnings to avoid [a] stock crash,” positing that “the steep falls [in NVIDIA’s stock price] [we]re a strong incentive for Nvidia to mask large fluctuations in revenue”.

If you're an investor who is not necessarily tech-savvy but who is doing some research into what informed sources are saying, the insistence of the billion-dollar, industry-leader tech company and manufacturer about their own sales probably carries a lot of weight. And you might be inclined to believe the tech company over some forum posts, feeling reassured in the knowledge that it is illegal for the tech company and manufacturer to misrepresent their business to you, knowing that the tech company and manufacturer is fully aware of this fact.

But during the period the lawsuit is concerning, Nvidia's was the worst-performing stock:

Chipmaker Nvidia plunges after missing on revenue and guidance
Nvidia’s 54 percent plunge this quarter makes it the biggest loser in S&P 500
Click to expand...

I don't see where NVIDIA misled anyone in the link you posted. In fact, let me take a quote from the first one (both link to the same URL):

Overall, in the fiscal third quarter, Nvidia’s revenue rose 21 percent year over year, according to its earnings statement.

“Our near-term results reflect excess channel inventory post the crypto-currency boom, which will be corrected,” Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang is quoted as saying in a Thursday press release. In the fiscal third quarter Nvidia’s revenue from original equipment manufacturers and intellectual property totaled $148 million, which was down 23 percent year over year but above the FactSet consensus estimate of $102 million. Nvidia chocked up the decline to “the absence of cryptocurrency mining” in its earnings statement.

In the quarter Nvidia had a $57 million charge related to older products because of the decrease in demand for cryptocurrency mining.
Click to expand...

NVIDIA revenue was up but it just didn't meet analyst expectations so the stock market did what it always does when that happens by reducing the value of the companies stock. How is NVIDIA lying when they clearly state they had inventory glut from cryptomining?

I'm sure quite a few people sold at a loss during that period. Research for the lawsuit would have started back then and so lawyer and other expenses would date back to then. So, regardless of how the stock is doing now, the alleged misinformation from Nvidia would have caused damages. And regardless of how the stock is now doing, misrepresenting a business to investors is still fraud.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a whole lot of sour grapes to me. If they sold because they panicked, that's their own shortsightedness and has nothing to do with NVIDIA lying. Finally, the lead plaintiff isn't joe sixpack, it's a gigantic investment firm that should be doing it's due diligence when it invests large sums of cash in companies, at least I hope it does. The average computer hobbyist knew the cryptomining craze was a bubble so how did these guys not know? Not to mention, if they had held on to their stock, they would have turned a profit. This lawsuit won't go anywhere, if it does I'll be genuinely shocked.
 
5150Joker said:
I don't see where NVIDIA misled anyone in the link you posted. In fact, let me take a quote from the first one (both link to the same URL):

NVIDIA revenue was up but it just didn't meet analyst expectations so the stock market did what it always does when that happens by reducing the value of the companies stock. How is NVIDIA lying when they clearly state they had inventory glut from cryptomining?
Click to expand...

The statement you've cited refers to FY Q3 2019. But the lawsuit entails FY 2018 Q2 - FY Q2 2019. Also, a financial result report comes after the reporting period is over, and not before and during that period.

I guess that Nvidia changed their representation of their revenue following that period. They probably had already heard an earful and maybe threats of legal action from their investors at that point.

The complaint document alleges, with many examples that: "Defendants falsely claimed, quarter after quarter, that the Gaming segment’s sales growth resulted from strong organic demand from gamers while misleading the market into believing that NVIDIA’s dependence on cryptocurrency-related revenues was “small” and that any exposure to that inherently volatile demand was contained in its Crypto SKU and ancillary OEM segment. "

The document also shows how much of their revenue Nvidia reported as being from crypto-mining as opposed to gamers, and the discrepancy between Nvidia's claims and the estimated reality:

image1Capture.PNG.35ec00ecc2b5ef0a6433bd5e32a76d90.png

The lawsuit also cites an RBC Capital Markets report which concluded that Nvidia under-reported their crypto-mining sales from Feb 2017 to July 2018 by $1.35 billion USD, when Nvidia reported crypto sales as being worth $602 million instead of $1.95 billion.

So, my guess is that it's likely Nvidia changed their reporting behaviour by the end of Q3 FY 2019 due to obvious suspicion and anger from investors.
 
Delicieuxz said:
The statement you've cited refers to FY Q3 2019. But the lawsuit entails FY 2018 Q2 - FY Q2 2019. Also, a financial result report comes after the reporting period is over, and not before and during that period.

I guess that Nvidia changed their representation of their revenue following that period. They probably had already heard an earful and maybe threats of legal action from their investors at that point.

The complaint document alleges, with many examples that: "Defendants falsely claimed, quarter after quarter, that the Gaming segment’s sales growth resulted from strong organic demand from gamers while misleading the market into believing that NVIDIA’s dependence on cryptocurrency-related revenues was “small” and that any exposure to that inherently volatile demand was contained in its Crypto SKU and ancillary OEM segment. "

The document also shows how much of their revenue Nvidia reported as being from crypto-mining as opposed to gamers, and the discrepancy between Nvidia's claims and the estimated reality:

View attachment 246541

The lawsuit also cites an RBC Capital Markets report which concluded that Nvidia under-reported their crypto-mining sales from Feb 2017 to July 2018 by $1.35 billion USD, when Nvidia reported crypto sales as being worth $602 million instead of $1.95 billion.
Click to expand...

Did you read how they came up with those numbers? They're all estimates based on interviews they got from ex-managers and supposed GeForce Experience telemetry. The latter is especially laughable because why would anyone running a mining operation install GFE?
 
5150Joker said:
Did you read how they came up with those numbers? They're all estimates based on interviews they got from ex-managers and supposed GeForce Experience telemetry. The latter is especially laughable because why would anyone running a mining operation install GFE?
Click to expand...

The plaintiffs claim that the GFE telemetry showed that 60% of Nvidia's GPU purchases in the relevant time-frame were used for mining. Saying 'why would anyone running a miner install GFE' is neither here nor there to the point that the telemetry showed that 60% of GPUs it was getting feedback on were being used for mining. If many miners didn't install GFE, that just means that the percentage of GPUs used for mining is even higher than 60%.

As to why a miner would install GFE, I have that same question for gamers. But GFE is bundled with the GPU drivers. If a person does the automatic installation of the drivers, GFE will be installed. To avoid installing it, they have to use the custom installation and uncheck the GFE box. This means that most people don't do a custom installation but just click through the driver installation prompts.
 
Delicieuxz said:
The plaintiffs claim that the GFE telemetry showed that 60% of Nvidia's GPU purchases in the relevant time-frame were used for mining. Saying 'why would anyone running a miner install GFE' is neither here nor there to the point that the telemetry showed that 60% of GPUs it was getting feedback on were being used for mining. If many miners didn't install GFE, that just means that the percentage of GPUs used for mining is even higher than 60%.
Click to expand...

"Used for mining" is not the same as "used exclusively for mining." If we apply the same bad reading skills to other applications, then the Geforce lineup is actually just a set of web browsing cards because 100% of them get "used for web browsing." Seems like maybe you should sue Nvidia for lying to us about their web browsing revenues? Maybe file a second one about Nvidia failing to disclose that RTX gaming revenues are actually just pornography revenues because GFE found that 98% of RTX cards have been used for pornography? (Note to self: wear gloves when installing secondhand RTX cards)

Delicieuxz said:
As to why a miner would install GFE, I have that same question for gamers. But GFE is bundled with the GPU drivers. If a person does the automatic installation of the drivers, GFE will be installed. To avoid installing it, they have to use the custom installation and uncheck the GFE box. This means that most people don't do a custom installation but just click through the driver installation prompts.
Click to expand...

The alleged dedicated miners aren't "most people." Implied by the allegations, these are customers who singled out Nvidia's products as the best suited to their singular use case of cryptomining. Also implied by the allegations, these customers disappeared because their extremely highly focused use case evaporated. As such, these are highly qualified and highly informed users who would have done careful and non-standard driver installations which would not have included GFE - and not just because they weren't even running Windows.
 
Last edited:
So, nVidia price gouging (somewhat) confirmed?

If they are truly sitting on quite the backlog of unsold stock, then that's enough evidence for me.

Been saying that my suspicion was nVidia was riding the coattails of the mining boom by intentionally overinflating their GPU prices when the RTX 2000 series was released at those ridiculous price points, and this may very well be proof positive of them doing exactly that.

Took the page right out of OPECs and NAND manufacturers playbooks: intentionally limit supply to create a demand, prices go up, record setting profits get marked down on the books, and stock prices soar. Unfortunately, the bubble will always burst, exposing the shenanigans.
 
DejaWiz said:
Took the page right out of OPECs and NAND manufacturers playbooks: intentionally limit supply to create a demand, prices go up, record setting profits get marked down on the books, and stock prices soar. Unfortunately, the bubble will always burst, exposing the shenanigans.
Click to expand...

And what about Ebay sellers who were and still are overcharging for those 1070's ... someone gonna sue them too :p
 
HAL_404 said:
And what about Ebay sellers who were and still are overcharging for those 1070's ... someone gonna sue them too :p
Click to expand...

Those eBay gouge sellers are not the manufacturing and supply source. I know you're injecting some humor here to keep things lightened up, which is fine by me...I just want to keep the reality of the situation in check for others that read this thread and may not fully understand the root and ramifications.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top