New Open Compute Project (OCP) working group: Companies form a new working group to standardize on a silicon-based and attested secure integrated hardware security module (HSM) solution for cloud and hyperscale data center infrastructure.

Strengthening cloud security: Secure key caching and attestation cryptographic key lifecycle management at the server level will reduce latency, improve scalability and strengthen the security posture of cloud compute workloads.

Open technical specification: Initial draft of technical specification to be released at OCP Global Summit in October 2026, paving the way for broad industry adoption of in-server security for data centers. | $MRVL $MSFT $ORCL

But there is a considerably bigger question emerging around the latest high-profile bearish campaigns against the AI complex:

At what point does repeatedly attacking the market value of companies building the Western AI infrastructure stack cease to be merely a valuation debate and begin producing consequences that directly benefit America’s principal technological competitor?

That question deserves serious attention.

Recent bearish positioning has reportedly touched Nebius $NBIS and Oracle $ORCL after earlier, very public skepticism surrounding Palantir $PLTR and other leading AI names. Whatever one thinks about their individual valuations, these companies occupy different but strategically relevant layers of an increasingly important technological architecture.

Nebius describes itself as an AI-cloud company providing infrastructure spanning model training through production deployment. Its infrastructure footprint includes substantial GPU capacity and U.S. data-center expansion. Oracle, meanwhile, is deploying enormous amounts of capital into Oracle Cloud Infrastructure and AI superclusters capable of supporting some of the world’s most computationally demanding workloads.

These aren’t companies selling another fashionable consumer app.

They are helping build compute infrastructure.

And compute is rapidly becoming strategic infrastructure.

AI Is No Longer Just Another Investment Theme

The central mistake in treating the AI boom exactly like the dot-com bubble is assuming that artificial intelligence represents merely another speculative technology cycle.

AI is increasingly becoming an economic and geopolitical capability.

The country controlling the strongest combination of semiconductors, energy, data centers, cloud infrastructure, software platforms, models and capital will possess an extraordinary competitive advantage across manufacturing, defense, medicine, robotics, finance, logistics, scientific research and virtually every knowledge-intensive industry.

Washington itself increasingly treats leadership in artificial intelligence as a matter of national competitiveness and security.

The United States therefore finds itself in an unusual situation.

American companies are spending extraordinary sums building the infrastructure required to preserve that leadership. Meanwhile, China is simultaneously pursuing its own AI ecosystem and attempting to reduce dependence on Western technology.

That makes the financing environment surrounding American AI infrastructure strategically relevant.

Capital Markets Are Part of the AI Supply Chain

AI requires something frequently forgotten in discussions about algorithms: capital.

Gigawatt-scale data centers, GPU clusters, networking equipment, cooling systems, power generation and transmission infrastructure require hundreds of billions, and ultimately potentially trillions, of dollars.

Companies undertaking those investments depend upon healthy capital markets.

Equity valuations influence financing capacity. Financing capacity influences infrastructure investment. Infrastructure investment determines compute availability. Compute availability influences AI development.

The chain is straightforward:

Capital → Infrastructure → Compute → Models → Applications → Economic Power.

Consequently, aggressively undermining investor confidence across strategically important AI infrastructure companies can have consequences extending considerably beyond somebody winning or losing a stock-market trade.

That does not make short selling unlawful.

It does mean the wider consequences deserve examination.

Follow the Pattern

This is also why the sequence matters.

First came highly visible bearish positioning against companies such as Palantir.

Now attention has shifted toward other parts of the AI ecosystem, including Oracle and reportedly Nebius.

Palantir subsequently delivered exceptionally strong operating results, with its shares surging following its latest earnings report. That doesn’t prove every criticism of its valuation was wrong, … valuation and business quality are separate questions. But it demonstrates why sweeping declarations about an “AI bubble” can age remarkably quickly when directed at companies whose underlying businesses are still expanding rapidly.

The same distinction should be applied elsewhere.

Oracle undoubtedly faces legitimate questions surrounding leverage, capital expenditure, lease commitments and returns on its enormous AI build-out. Those issues should be analyzed rigorously.

Oracle’s aggressive infrastructure expansion is precisely why investors must scrutinize its balance sheet.

But there is an enormous intellectual difference between:

“This company may be incorrectly valued.”

and

“The AI infrastructure boom itself is fundamentally irrational.”

Conflating the two risks missing perhaps the largest infrastructure transformation since the commercialization of the internet.

Who Benefits If America Slows Down?

Here lies the uncomfortable geopolitical question.

Suppose relentless negative narratives materially increase financing costs, depress valuations and make boards more reluctant to approve enormous AI infrastructure investments.

Who benefits?

Certainly not the United States if the result is fewer GPU clusters, fewer hyperscale facilities, less domestic compute capacity and slower deployment of AI infrastructure.

America’s competitors would hardly object.

China does not need American AI companies to disappear. From a competitive standpoint, it merely needs them to move more slowly.

Every delayed data center, postponed GPU cluster or cancelled infrastructure project potentially narrows the technological gap.

That does not establish that any particular short seller intends to assist China. There is no basis for making such an accusation merely because someone takes a bearish investment position.
Intent and consequence are entirely different matters.
But investors, policymakers and corporate boards should be capable of discussing the consequences without pretending they do not exist.

Short Selling Is Legitimate. Market Manipulation Would Not Be.

The legal distinction is equally important.

Taking a short position based upon a genuinely held investment thesis is lawful market activity.

Publishing critical research is lawful.

Being spectacularly wrong about a company is also lawful.

What would raise a fundamentally different set of questions would be knowingly disseminating false or misleading information, coordinating deceptive market activity, trading on unlawfully obtained material non-public information, or engaging in other conduct prohibited by securities law.

Those are questions for regulators and courts based upon evidence, not accusations to be casually made by investors on social media.

The Real Question Washington Should Be Asking

America has spent years restricting China’s access to advanced AI chips and other critical technologies because policymakers recognize that compute capacity matters strategically.

It would therefore be strange to ignore the capital-market side of precisely the same equation.

If advanced semiconductors are strategic infrastructure, then the data centers housing them are strategic infrastructure.

If those data centers are strategic infrastructure, the cloud platforms operating them matter.

And if enormous amounts of private capital are required to construct those platforms, then efficient and trustworthy capital markets are themselves part of America’s AI advantage.

This doesn’t mean protecting AI companies from falling share prices.

It means ensuring that legitimate price discovery remains distinguishable from manipulation and that extraordinary market-moving claims receive appropriate scrutiny.

America Should Be Very Careful What It Shorts

AI will almost certainly produce failures.

Some companies will overspend. Some valuations will prove absurd. Some data centers will generate disappointing returns. Some celebrated AI companies will disappear altogether.

Capitalism requires allowing those failures to happen.

But dismissing the entire AI infrastructure build-out because today’s expenditures appear enormous risks repeating one of history’s favorite analytical mistakes: judging tomorrow’s infrastructure using yesterday’s demand.

Railroads once looked excessive.

Telecommunications networks looked excessive.

Fiber capacity looked excessive.

Cloud infrastructure looked excessive.

Then applications arrived that consumed it.

AI may ultimately do something similar with compute on a scale we have barely begun to understand.

America is currently constructing the industrial infrastructure of the intelligence economy.

China understands what is at stake.

Washington understands what is at stake.

Silicon Valley understands what is at stake.

Long-term investors should understand it too.

So when another famous “Big Short” narrative appears, first around one strategically relevant AI company, then another, and then another, …. the appropriate response isn’t to silence the skeptic.

It is to scrutinize the thesis just as aggressively as the skeptic scrutinizes the company.

Because there is an enormous difference between shorting an overvalued stock and repeatedly betting against the infrastructure underpinning America’s technological leadership.

The former is ordinary capitalism.

The consequences of the latter deserve considerably more attention.(BookR/DGold/cm)

Disclosure: This article represents commentary and opinion for informational purposes only. It does not allege unlawful conduct by any person or entity and should not be interpreted as investment, legal or financial advice.

This is not financial advice. Always conduct your own due diligence and consider the inherent volatility and risks associated with small-cap equities, private investments, cryptocurrencies, and pre-IPO holdings.

DYOR, NFA, and E&OE. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. It is not an investment recommendation or any form of advisory opinion, but solely reflects the views of the author(s), who may hold positions in the securities discussed. Always conduct your own due diligence. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results. Errors and omissions excepted.