You are stating this as a fact. Do you have any links?
Otherwise, the simplest interpretation is that the $20B is paid by Nvidia to Groq, the company, not the investors. I don't even think it is legally possible for Nvidia to do a deal with Groq's investors directly, rather than with Groq.
Is that your opinion, or you have some more solid source to state that?
Because your argument sounds something like this: Nvidia did something (a fact), and I am sure that after that Groq will do something else (not a fact), therefore Nvidia is such a bad player. Do you consider this to be a correct argument?
The Axios article is reporting on a scoop, quite breathlessly. But read it more carefully.
All the employees who jumped ship (90%) had to be bought out, otherwise they would have a conflict of interests. The schedule is quite irrelevant. The remaining 10% also got cash. But the article is quite mum on the institutional investors. They can choose to cash out, or to keep the business running. Now that they have a lot of cash, they can choose to expand GroqCloud, or they can choose to pretend to keep the business running, just for show, to not trigger regulatory scrutiny. To claim it’s the second means you are quite confident the regulators in this administration will do their job. And prosecute Nvidia. Are you really saying that?
You are stating this as a fact. Do you have any links?
Otherwise, the simplest interpretation is that the $20B is paid by Nvidia to Groq, the company, not the investors. I don't even think it is legally possible for Nvidia to do a deal with Groq's investors directly, rather than with Groq.