I don't see what's Jenga-esque about this capital structure. You've got some AA- bonds issued directly by Meta having to do with their core business, and some A+ bonds issued by different entities to fund their riskier and more speculative datacenter construction. If anything, wouldn't it be harder to track the risk if both these bonds were stuffed into the same bucket?

A nice article on the underlying systemic causes of the crash:

https://archive.ph/2015.11.08-145615/http://www.wired.com/20...

Except for a few instances, there wasn’t any lying or outright fraud in that situation, just like there probably isn’t here either.

Just desperate, stupid, or naive lenders trying to get solid returns (and convincing themselves there are no major risk).

Just like ‘08, frankly.

Have enough lawyers, and you can make almost anything legal and aboveboard, no matter how sketchy it actually is. Buyer beware!

If it's related to AI, it's more like wash trading. The entire business interest in AI is making things look like there's a lot of investment when it's really just a small circle jerk of business interests.

It's just a more advanced crypto fraud.

Not even deceptive. This is relatively normal business practice.

It’s easier to think of this as “project risk” as opposed to corporate risk overall.

This isn’t different than creating a subsidiary to embark on a new program, with its own debts and assets, collateralized by a parent company.

It’s effectively the same as what happens every time a major movie studio starts a new film project.