Nvidia CEO Rebuts Report That $100B OpenAI Deal Has Stalled

A recent report suggested Nvidia was reconsidering the scale of a previously publicized, headline‑grabbing framework tied to OpenAI; Jensen Huang pushed back, saying those accounts mischaracterize ongoing discussions and confirming Nvidia’s intent to participate in the current round. The September memorandum described both a large capital relationship and plans for substantial compute capacity, but company executives have long said those early terms were nonbinding and subject to detailed negotiation. Media accounts quoted internal concerns at Nvidia about strategic concentration and competitive pressures and suggested any eventual equity infusion could be materially smaller than the initial $100 billion figure. Huang, speaking to reporters in Taipei, emphasized that Nvidia finds the opportunity attractive but did not provide a committed dollar amount, underscoring the distinction between headline frameworks and legally binding agreements. OpenAI continues to work through partnership details and has other potential participants in discussions, so final outcomes will reflect bilateral negotiation and possible wider syndication. Separately, Nvidia’s $2.0 billion stake in CoreWeave — announced in recent industry reporting — shows a parallel approach: anchoring downstream GPU capacity and reducing execution risk on compute supply while also concentrating commercial ties. That pattern reflects a broader market dynamic where capital, compute and distribution are being negotiated together, raising questions about vendor neutrality, information rights and potential regulatory scrutiny. For OpenAI, uncertainty about firm investor commitments complicates planning for compute buildouts and cash runway; for Nvidia, the calculus balances upside from deeper commercial alignment against counterparty concentration and competitive moves by rivals. Market participants should expect headline numbers and timelines to shift as legal teams convert frameworks into enforceable deals and as infrastructure delivery schedules crystallize. In the near term the episode reduces the risk of an abrupt funding collapse but preserves material uncertainty about size, timing and contractual terms that will determine commercial and competitive effects.