upvote
According to the NYT[1], Megaspeed (originally Chinese owned) was registered in Singapore in 2023, allowing it to bypass US export bans. FOUR days after the re-registration, Nvidia designated Megaspeed a preferred partner, giving it priority access to advanced chips (H200). Seems a bit odd.

Then Nvidia's general counsel contacted the commerce dept in 2025 to ask about a smuggling investigation into Megaspeed and whether the U.S. was involved in Singapore's detention of Alice Huang. Direction for this likely coming from Jensen.

Align that with his active lobbying of Washington officials to loosen export restrictions to China specifically

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/100000011275138/nvidia-j...

reply
So because you, in your infinite knowledge of international smuggling, can't envision any method for evading export control, it must not be possible. Is that what you're saying?
reply
"This Singapore client wants a bazillion H200s".

Not really that complicated of a scheme! The main thing is that the sales people... they "know" this is likely export control circumvention but choose to not make a stink about it. Willful ignorance.

Often times these export control issues play out like:

- big deals made with shell companies

- most people involved are incentivised to play along and pretend to not notice the shell-ness of the company

- one person doesn't get the memo and is like "uhh... wait isn't this bad?"

- now that the phrase has been uttered, either cover ups happen or a bunch of other nasty shit happens

reply
Reality, I suppose that most procuments is played along the line : this Singapore company claimed it was for their local legal entity, and here the certificate/contract they signed.

At this stage, there is no reason to not sign the contract to provide whatever they ask. DD done, risk management done, risk but acceptable etc.

So yes everyone is playing the game.

reply
Maybe more "Hey, sell to this new Neocloud I met with in Singapore. Sure, it's ran by Chinese nationals, no, I don't know who's workloads they're running, don't worry about it."

...which may or may not be a violation of the export controls but it violates the intent.

reply