I am also guessing that the majority of the people who read this title will think that DeepSeek is pausing this fundraising because some comments they made about the compute gap were leaked. That is not the case.
I don't know what "compute gap" means in this context though and it's not clear that that's why they plan to pause fundraising or if the title is conflating.
The title is certainly a great conflation. Any seeker of capital would want to regroup after an unfiltered leak of this magnitude, if for no other reason than to secure the forum from future leaks. The comments about the unlikelihood of enormous future profits were at least as consequential with regard to capital investment as anything else that was said.
There's quite a bit of confidential information in the doc about the company and how it's positioning itself going forward to compete with US labs. I'd imagine they're not happy at all with this being leaked and are withholding investment as a punitive measure.
Not to mention the other interpretation seems illogical -- why would you pause fundraising if your perception was that you lacked resources compared to your competitors?
> There is certainly no shortage of funds or resources --- in fact, all these are readily available [...]
> Within our financial capacity, it's undoubtedly true that the more cards are always better. Our current strategy is to purchase as many cards as possible at a reasonable price --- exactly how many we can afford after using this funding round. The spending pace isn't predetermined; we'll buy whatever is available as long as prices remain competitive. In fact, I'd consider that a positive outcome if we spend the entire amount within six months. [...]
> In reality, spending such a large sum is no easy task: you can't obtain enough cards, they're hard to come by [...]
> Therefore, our only concern is whether we can obtain enough cards. If converting all funds into cards were feasible, we would undoubtedly do so without hesitation and are even willing to pay a premium for this benefit --- it's simply to cost effective. Even after paying the premium, however, achieving this goal remains challenging.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-07-25/deepseek-...
Update:
Less-paywalled word-for-word copy it seems at
https://fortune.com/2026/07/25/deepseek-liang-wenfeng-backer...
"The suspension stemmed in part from Liang’s frustration over online reports about his comments to investors during his first financing deal"
The part of the transcript I'd seen floating around online was this part from around 1 hour 26 min:
"With the largest models available today, we simply cannot afford to train them. Even if we spent all five hundred billion yuan, we still wouldn't be able to do so. Even if we could accumulate the resources, we wouldn't have the means to utilize them. The current largest model requires approximately 800 billion activations; domestically, we are still at a scale of several dozen billion activations, and even the largest domestic model may only require several dozen billion activations—a difference of an order of magnitude. To train a model of the same size as an AI system, we would need around 50,000 GB300 GPUs or Huawei 950 GPUs, totaling two hundred thousand cards. This is merely training; research has not yet been considered. Therefore, the biggest gap between us and the United States lies in resources."
i genuinely think these models should be like 0.1 percent sparse for same capabilities we associate with them today, but theres no sane way to do that with extent tools. i built the right core tech for that in 2014 when there wasnt a market, but now there is and the experimentation velocity is wild.
amusingly llms really have a hard time using my simple apis because its not in distribution array programs. but i literally stood up cpu custom memory format and micro kernel for dense causal attention in less than 24-36 hours and outperforms the equivalent fused ggml/llama cpp fast oath by like 20-25 percent
In math terms, this means a layer of a network can be represented with a block matrix in the whole 'layer' matrix, which I think means its sparse as you said.
As I said, my math knowledge is rusty, but I remember that a lot of matrix optimization techniques center around decomposing large matrices into these smaller blocks, which are then evaluated, and the output is combined in a final pass. Which leads to a huge reduction on parameter numbers and the time it takes to evaluate the result
like i can do all sorts of memory layout of tensors/matrices etc tricks that if you dont have the abstractions for it would just never happen. so i can optimize the kernel flops
For most of the past five years, I've known ways to do better than Anthropic, OpenAI, and friends in many ways, at least on paper. I know I was right about many of them since many would show up 6-24 months later tools from the major providers, or otherwise become standard practice.
A central problem is the Mythical Man-Month. True, I could do those, beating then-state-of-the-art, but only given 2-5 years. I suspect many other people knew about them too and could do so as well. As I noted above, throwing people and dollars caused many of those to be built in less time than I could have regardless.
Other methods, I'm less confident about (>50%, <80%), but would lead to similar improvements orders-of-magnitude as you're predicting, but mine would need $$$$$ in compute and engineering infrastructure to build out. E.g. they need to not just theoretically work, but to try, I would need to convince someone to invest in them working.
So the TL;DR is that my knowledge was not at all helpful towards e.g. competing with OpenAI, Anthropic, or even building a small business.
However, where it was useful was in predicting where the industry was going. This is true in investing (but not easily, at least with my skill set), but in developing startups and systems, there were capabilities which I (correctly) assumed would be there, whereas there were many arguments that "AI will never be able to ____."
If I know how to do something, it will almost certainly happen, regardless of whether I'm the one who does it.
To be clear, my expertise is almost certainly nowhere as deep as yours. I'm not providing a direct analogy, or claiming others know what you do or can do the same. My point was really that if you believe you can have these models be 0.1 percent sparse for same capabilities we associate with them today:
a) You're probably right. They were built quickly for capabilities. A slower process can almost certainly lead to much smaller models too. That's a radical statement: Historically people claiming a 1000x improvement somewhere were crackpots, but that's very possible in an industry as fast-changing as this one.
b) Someone at Anthropic or OpenAI might be working on building out extent tools right now. Even if so, there are indirect ways to capitalize on that knowledge.
c) Critically, that predicts a future where Fable is $1/month instead of $100/month, and that's something which CAN be acted upon in planning.
It also suggests -- much less strongly -- the existence of much more sophisticated models at $100/month. There are open discussion in planning about whether models plateau, continue improving, singularity, or otherwise. That changes the biases there.