Point One: The supply channels extend far beyond the four countries you mentioned (including those Middle Eastern states). This explains why the U.S. has now implemented comprehensive restrictions across all nations.
Point Two: Specific operational details cannot be publicly disclosed here, particularly given this forum thread's persistent high visibility in Google search results.
I can reveal this much: We're discussing a nine-figure transaction between parties with no prior business history, necessitating intermediary escrow arrangements and technical verification capabilities to bridge mutual distrust. The Chinese recipient imposed location constraints favoring jurisdictions with Chinese legal protections. Through understanding their non-negotiable terms and standard transaction protocols, I gained rare insights into such high-stakes operations. Ultimately, the deal collapsed due to unique technical complications (consider: How does one validate quality assurance for components priced at 20k−300k per unit? The intermediary's financial exposure became untenable).
Regarding forum participants' professional backgrounds - while identifiable, what purpose would detailing serve? Should we disclose:
Additional unpublicized channels beyond known countries?
The shadow-state counterparts in these transactions?
Suppliers' operational blueprints and channel networks?
Any explicit discussion here would essentially gift-wrap intelligence for U.S. Commerce Department containment strategies. Given America's expanding restrictions, future countermeasures will inevitably adapt within predictable parameters.
If my expertise seems questionable, so be it. I'll maintain discretion accordingly. Let me emphasize: My statements here carry no guarantee of 100% accuracy, as the information itself contains inherent ambiguities. This case represents a commercially unsuccessful experimental transaction - precisely the kind of adaptive innovation constantly emerging to circumvent new restrictions.
Yes, I understand that supply channel goes through many countries. That's quite obvious. But it's also well known that nearby East Asian regions are some of the more popular conduit for these trades. Realistically, the only thing US can limit this trade is just forbid Nvidia chips from being exported.
And as we discussed already, it's pretty much pointless. Since the majority of demand going forward is going to be inference and China should be putting more effort on developed specialized inference chips.
As for your other stuff, I'm not really sure why you are mentioning them.
How smuggling happens is not particularly relevant but it's just relevant to know that they are happening. And the volume is quite high. My Singapore post is just one illustration, because we suddenly went from having no Nvidia sales to Singapore to probably $25B last year after H100/800 ban got imposed. And I think the commerce department probably has a good idea of just how much smuggling is getting through. Hence the new rules.
I think if you don't know how to be discrete with what you are saying, you shouldn't be talking about it. I wasn't trying to get you to talk but rather telling you to shut up.
So stuff like how transaction happens, this is not relevant. Some people might care, but people really just want to know that China has enough AI chips. I've been telling people "relax, they have enough AI chips". That's all people really need to know.
