alt Hacker NewsRight, because MegaSpeed is a Singapore-based company. Now that company may have channeled those chips to China, but officially Nvidia was not responsible for that unless it is proven that they knew about it. Investigations are ongoing but seems there is no concrete evidence for either the first or second part yet.
Replies
That may not be entirely true. KYC laws exist for this reason.
The United States should be sanctioning that company and possibly Singapore.
> Now that company may have channeled those chips to China, but officially Nvidia was not responsible for that unless it is proven that they knew about it.
It is almost adorable how naive this statement is.
For export controlled items like weapons, nuclear materials, GPUs, etc. you have to file for an export permit where you attest that you have performed sufficient due diligence and KYC that you strongly believe the person you are selling to is the end user.
You are literally accepting 100% liability for the items until they are returned to the US or irreversibly destroyed.
The basic allegations are:
* Megaspeed was evading US sanctions against China
* Megaspeed CEO was a Chinese state agent
* Huang was sleeping with Megaspeed CEO
Therefore, one of the following must be true:
(1) [Unlikely] Huang knowingly supported the evasion of sanctions. If so, he should be fired for breaking the law.
(2) Huang was tricked. If so, his judgement is now suspect.
Huang's argument is (2). In this case, the evalaution of his judgement is:
(A) Is this a one-off mistake? If so, he should be retained - he's human.
(B) Is this a pattern? If so, he should be fired - he's an ongoing risk (e.g., via regulatory action).
Huang resigned because the second affair indicated (B) - he's an ongoing risk.
As a result, the question of "who knew what when" is actually beside the point. Retaining Huang risks ongoing, overwhelming government action for evading sanctions - and the board members want 0 personal liability in that investigation.