Odd Lots - The King of Chicago Trading Wants to Build a GPU Market Bigger Than Oil

Episode Date: September 29, 2025

Don Wilson has built a career diving into some of trading’s thorniest problems, including figuring out ways to trade new and niche markets. Now, the founder and CEO of DRW has his sights set on the GPUs powering AI, which he thinks could end up being a bigger market than crude oil. In this episode, which was recorded live onstage at our show in Chicago, we talk about how such a market would work, including ways to ‘standardize’ the vast array of different types of semiconductors, and how this could change the capital stack of the industry. We also talk the evolution of trading over Don’s storied career and why he thinks most assets (and maybe even all of them) will be tokenized within the next five years. Read more:ASM International Cuts Outlook After Chip Demand DisappointsTaiwan Pauses South African Chip Export Curbs After Two Days Only Bloomberg - Business News, Stock Markets, Finance, Breaking & World News subscribers can get the Odd Lots newsletter in their inbox each week, plus unlimited access to the site and app. Subscribe at  bloomberg.com/subscriptions/oddlotsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News. Hey there, Oddlots listeners, you are about to get a conversation with Don Wilson, founder and CEO of DRW, sometimes called The Smartest Man in Trading. This was recorded live on stage at Chicago's Untitled Supper Club. We had a blast, and we hope you'll enjoy the show. All right, Don, well, thank you for being here. Really appreciate it. Great to be here. Truly the perfect guest to talk.

about what's next in trading. But just to begin with, why GPUs? Well, obviously, AI is becoming more and more useful. And as it becomes more useful, people use more of it, which means they need to use more GPUs to run inference or train new models. And I actually have this theory that within the next 10 years, the world will spend more per year on GPUs than it does on crude oil. And that would, of course, make GPUs compute the largest commodity in the world. So it seems like you would kind of need a market for that. A very modest call, just the largest market in the world. Yeah. It's funny because I associate oil often coming out of, you know, sandy desert, but now they're literally turning the sand via chips into the commodity itself or like breathing life into the sand. Just to back up, I have a million

questions about this. For those who don't know, why don't you give us the sort of, you know, the 30 second or the 45 second description of what you do or what DRW is? Yeah. So I started off standing in the trading pit in Chicago and the Eurodollar Option pit, yelling and screaming. And then I would go home and write code on my Macintosh computer and build models. And essentially, you know, I don't stand in the pit and yell and scream anymore. Most of the pits are gone. But we kind of do the same thing now with computers. I heard a story that you were once on vacation with your family and you were in Italy, I think in Florence. And instead of, I don't know, eating gelato or something like that, you decided to invent a new Greek letter for derivatives trading. So, so. This is cool. Yeah. So here,

I mean, you're confusing two stories. So actually, actually what happened was there was a new exchange that had launched an interest rate swap futures contract. It was called IDCG. And I looked at the contract and I figured out that actually they had not designed the contracts properly. And so although they were telling everybody that it was economically equivalent to a regular interest rate swap, it wasn't. because it had this additional convexity bias in it, which is, we could talk about convexity bias. It goes even more in the weeds than a lot of your podcasts go into.

But so when I was in Florence, I had this idea of how you could create an interest rate swap futures contract without this convexity bias problem. And that is what I focused my time on there. What was the letter? So back to the letter, the letter was about after a really, unpleasant period in the Eurodollar option pit where all the market makers lost tons of money because the shape of the skew shifted dramatically as the Fed started hiking in a very predictable manner. And nobody had really developed a measure for linear skew. And so during the week,

I said, well, this isn't that much fun. We're losing a lot of money every day. But the good news is that that means we have something to learn. And so I spent the weekend working with the quants and we came up with, you know, kind of a measure of the linear skew between the calls and puts and decided to use the Greek letter, SIE, to describe it. And, you know, so by Monday morning, we had put it into the risk and onto the sheets. And before the open, I explained to the traders how to talk about it, how to use language around it. And before you know, know what, we had made the money back because we were able to trade, manage this risk better than anybody else because we had a whole language around it.

Amazing. So we've established your street cred when it comes to solving problems in contracts for financial instruments. If I think about a GPU future or something like that, the first problem that comes to my mind is standardization because, of course, you know, all different types of chips, different types of memory, different latency, I guess. How do you go about addressing that? So that's a great question. And right now, so what we've done if we set up two companies. One is called compute exchange, not very creatively named. We have a tendency to do that.

At DRW is your initials, right? That was my trading badge. And yes, also my initials. Yeah. I mean, we did better later on with Cumberland, our crypto trading arm. That was actually of reference to the Grateful Dead song about the Cumberland Mines. Oh, I didn't know that. I didn't know that either. Yeah. One of my partners who does the more creative naming came up with that one. He's a dead fan.

Anyway, the other company is called Silicon Data. And Silicon Data's job is to create indices that will become tradable, you know, will be viable to have futures contracts listed on them. And right now, they've created a number of different ones. but one is the H-100 index, another one is the A-100 index. And believe it or not, those indices are both available on Bloomberg.

Oh, amazing. That's a love hearing that. If we were in the studio, I would already be looking up the chart as you were talking about it. Who are the natural participants? Because when I think about AI or training, you know, imagine someone goes to one of the big cloud vendors

and they sign a long-term contract or whatever, who are the participants? who would be better off in an environment where there was a liquid market for compute? So what we found, and DRW actually uses compute exchange to source compute, and we find that because there are something like 70 different cloud providers that participate, you can often get better pricing.

And one of the things that you can do is you can specify, if let's say that you're an AI company, and you know roughly what, what kind of cluster you want. You can specify that. You can even say, you know what, I'm indifferent between locations, or, you know, if it's in the Middle East,

I'm still okay with it, but I want to pay 20 cents per DPR or less. Whatever it is, you can kind of express your preference curve. Computer exchange can conduct an auction and then, you know, find the kind of best price compute that matches your needs. So that's kind of the idea of how it works. And, you know,

it probably doesn't work. work if you want a 10,000 cluster monster for doing a huge training run. But for inference, it works great or for smaller training runs, it works really well. Is the broader impact the idea that once you establish a liquid market where people can, you know, presumably hedge their exposure, that that would bring down the cost of capital? So that's right. So once you have a liquid market, then you have much more confidence in the indices. and you can then list futures contracts.

And so what does that do? It enables the neoclouds that are going out, raising capital, buying a bunch of GPUs, putting them in data centers, and kind of hoping that they can rent them out and not really knowing what they're going to be able to rent them out for six months from now, let alone two years from now. So a neocloud could buy the GPUs, sell a strip of futures contracts.

I envision that these will be traded kind of like electricity futures where there's one for every month. And if you want to hedge the next three years, you sell 36 of them. And now you've locked in your pricing. Obviously, their cost of capital is going to go down, which in turn should make GPUs more readily available. And then on the flip side, if you're running an AI company and you raise a finite amount of dollars and you kind of know how much training you're going to do, but you don't know exactly what configuration, you can go ahead buy the compute in the derivatives market. And then once you have a clear view on exactly what configuration you want, then you can swap those derivatives for actual compute. Talk to us a little bit more about the cell side.

So like we have these like big clouds, right, the ones that everybody knows. And then you mentioned the neoclouds. Do you see that changing? Like what do you see? is the future mix of cloud vendors in the future? So that is a great question. I think that the whole space is going to grow, but that the AWS GCPs of the world will make up a smaller percentage of the whole. Okay.

That's my guess, but... How come? Because there is such proliferation of other companies buying GPUs and deploying them. Okay. That's a good answer. You know, Joe asked you who would be the next? natural market participants for this. I'm going to ask you the opposite question.

Who wouldn't want this? Because I think of some of the hyperscalers, they seem to like controlling the GPU supply and maybe squeezing some of their competitors. Would you expect resistance from them? Yeah. I mean, I think the hyperscalers benefit from opaque pricing and kind of bundled pricing. And of course, they would prefer to have all the GPUs. But, Invidia wants...

I would also prefer to have all the GPUs. Yeah. Yeah, that's always a good thing. But I think Nvidia wants the GPUs to be widely distributed, and they're really the ones that make the call. This isn't the first time that there's been an attempt to create futures markets out of technology. I think there's been multiple efforts decades ago to, like, DRAM futures. It doesn't seem that fundamentally different, although maybe it is, why did those fail? Like, when you think about, like, what's going to be different at this time, what was the failure that caused, like, why didn't DRAM futures take off? So the thing about DRAM was that the price just kept on going down. So

in a very predictable way. And so why would you want to buy a futures contract if you know the price and the future is going to be lower? Whereas GPUs, you know, we've certainly gone through periods where GPU demand was super high. And then we've gone through a period where, you know, there was kind of some excess supply. So there's not a consistent trajectory of pricing. I think that there will be a consistent trajectory lower in terms of, I don't know, however you want to measure it, dollars per flop or dollars per token. I think that that's going to continue to decline. But, you know, and H100 is going to be a useful GPU for a very long time. And over its life, I think there will be periods where there's more demand, less demand,

and, you know, a little bit more cyclicality and less predictability. So I know that the Trump administration has said that they want. this market to happen, right? So you seem to have some regulatory, I guess, tailwind behind you. Yeah, I mean, I don't think that this is a controversial thing. I think that it's pretty clear that once we figure out the right index construction and have kind of sufficient data, that I don't think the CFTC would complain about the product. This is a little bit of a sideways question from your attempt to build this market. But speaking of the cloud, in your main business at DRW, I assume you're sort of major customers or users of the CME. Are you excited

about the CME's migration of its back end to Google Cloud? Because they tout it. They talk about their partnership with Google, et cetera. As a client or customer, are you enthusiastic about this move? We interviewed Terry earlier today, and he was excited for sure. Yeah. So it depends on what you put into the cloud. And it's totally fine to put a lot of things into the cloud. but the thing that you don't want to put into the cloud is a matching engine. And the reason for that is you want the matching engine to be as deterministic as possible. So that means that if you send two orders into the matching engine, one, let's say, a couple of microseconds behind the other one, you want the one that gets there first to be filled every time. Yeah.

And if you put stuff into the cloud, it's very hard to make that happen. You wind up getting, you know, a wide distribution around which order will be filled first. And even as you kind of stretch those times out, you could have an order that comes in maybe a couple milliseconds later be filled first. That is super disruptive for liquidity providers. and it means that the liquidity in the market is going to suffer. Huh. But this is, you say it's not ideal for them to have a matching engine in the cloud, but this is the direction it's going in.

Yeah, and it's unclear exactly which part of the matching engine will be in the cloud. Is it some kind of a dual structure? I don't know. But that's what matters is a deterministic matching engine. I mean, if Google can figure out how to make a matching engine in the cloud deterministic, Go for it. I'm very skeptical that that's even possible. Can you just describe the sort of theoretical problem? What is it about cloud computing that makes this particular problem, the deterministic aspect,

difficult as opposed to traditional infrastructure? Well, when you have on-prem computers, you can, it's all right there. You can control where the wires go. Oh, I see. And so when it's in the cloud, it's a little bit more, well, nebulous, I guess. It's just harder to do. That's a good pun. I admire it. So you mentioned that you have this long and storied career in the trading industry, starting from old school trading, and now we're here talking about GPU trading and what's in the cloud and what works and what doesn't. Tell us what your company, what DRW is actually doing when it comes to practical application of AI. This is a question we're asking everyone. We ask all companies to spill all their proprietary secrets about AI. Excluding the engineers.

We know that they're generating code. We know people are coding. Yes, we know that they're using clog code or whatever. So besides the engineer. You're right. That's kind of the boring answer. Yeah, that's the boring. And then the other thing is then when we ask this question,

people cite a bunch of machine learning things that has been here for a while. So let's talk about actual AI. Yeah. Yeah. So I think that the way that we make trading decisions is going to change dramatically. And it already is. You can use AI to interact with your proprietary data, your proprietary models, and suggest trades. That's pretty cool.

Are you doing that right now? Yeah. So we're starting to do that. But we have some tools that kind of do that now. And the other thing that's really interesting is to fiddle around with agents and have different agents interact. And so you could kind of think about maybe you have a couple different analysts. AI analysts that both work on some stock, and then you have kind of a risk-taking agent,

or maybe a couple different risk-taking agents that interact with those analysts, and then come up with trades based on that. So, I mean, that's a little bit of a theoretical concept, but I don't think we're that far away from things like that. Just on the cloud trading a little bit more. I am really interested in this topic. What is the current state today,

just so that we understand where you're at. Like, what is today's snapshot of usage of the platforms? I mean, as far as where the matching engines are? No, no, no, no. Oh, sorry. On the GPU trading. Oh, the GPU. Is it right now?

Like, where is the state of the business? Oh. You know, I think last month we conducted five or six auctions. So it's early. Yeah. But it's happening. So when I think about how, like, futures contracts are born, And it's usually bespoke options and then you get the index, I guess, and then you get a forward and then a future.

That's kind of how I think about it in my head. Is that the process that you imagine for this? Not necessarily. I think that the simplest, I mean, yeah, I suppose you could do some privately negotiated compute swap or something and maybe that will happen first. But, no, I think the first thing is a futures contract that settles to an index. if the spot market becomes really liquid and you have very standardized auctions. And, you know, one of the things that you asked about was, well, how do you deal with the lack of standardized, you know, and so one thing is you go to a certain type of GPU, you know, H100, for instance. But even within that, you can configure them in different ways.

You could use infiniband. You could use some other way of connecting them. And so what's important is you need to decide on some benchmark. And one of the things that Silicon Data has done is they've actually built some measurement tools that measure how fast a GPU cluster is. And so you can then say, okay, well, in order for this GPU to be kind of eligible to be in the index, it needs to meet a certain standard. And there are a couple different vectors you can measure by. So I think that that's kind of how you would do it. And then if you got very liquid auctions, you could actually have a futures contract that cash settles to the auction price.

And then, you know, people could have the option of either essentially just cash settling their derivative and walking away or cash selling their derivative and participating in the auction. And they would know that price would transfer from one thing to another. That might be a future state of the world. and the initial state is probably just a generic index and the future is cash settled to the index. What would a market failure look like in GPU trading? Because your analogy is the oil market and weird stuff happens in the oil market.

Could we get negative GPU prices? Or if everyone wakes up one day and decides they want to use chat GPT as their psychotherapist or whatever, which some people are doing, could you have a GPU shortage where maybe people can't deliver into the contract? There are lots of ways that markets can break and go wrong. And I remember to this day that when oil futures went negative, it was during COVID. I was sitting at home. I was trading oil futures and I bought oil futures for negative prices. You were one of the ones who actually got us. Amazing.

My then, well, what was that? 2021. So yeah, my then 14 year old said to me, please, please, please, I want to buy negative priced futures. contract. And I said, well, you have no way of taking delivery the oil. And he said, I will go to Cushing, Oklahoma, and figure out how to do it. You've really raised a son, daughter, son. You've really, he's been learning. We have an episode about taking physical possession of oil. I do not recommend it. Turns out, if you keep it on your desk for long enough, it evaporates into the atmosphere and poisons your colleagues. Yeah. Anyway, a little bit of a tangent. So I think on the upward trajectory, if there's tons of demand, you know, that's something that commodity markets are really good at dealing with. The price will go up and more supply will come in,

and I think that's all good. On the downward side, you know, you can always just turn the GPUs off. So I don't think they trade negative. How much of the volatility that do you, when you anticipate market volatility in the price of GPUs, how much is that like embedded electricity costs? So when you buy compute, right? You're buying the chip, but also the power. Like, how much of that volatility will be the power? So the industry lingo that's used is total cost of ownership and, you know, what percentage of the total cost of ownership is the power price. And for an H-100, it's less than 15%. Less than 15. Yeah. Okay. So GPU trading, obviously one of the things you're working on, but you're a busy guy and you've got other stuff up your sleeve. What are you doing in the realms of

tokenized trading. So that is an area that we're super excited about. And we've been thinking about this for a very long time. So in 2012, when we started talking about Bitcoin at DRW, and there were a number of traders at DRW that were very excited about Bitcoin. You were very early into it. 2012 was still pretty early. Very early. Yeah. So we were having these discussions of why is this interesting? Is it interesting? What about it is interesting? And we came away with following thesis. There's some small chance that Bitcoin could be digital gold. I don't know, you know, call it 1%. It's kind of an interesting product. So we should probably make markets in it. So we set up Cumberland as the, and, you know, we didn't call it DRW because at the time,

everybody knew that anybody trading crypto was obviously a crook. So, you know, we wanted to kind of separate the brand a little bit. But, you know, the other thing was this idea that you could move value instantaneously in a trustless ecosystem was super interesting to me. And I said, wow, if you could do that in traditional financial markets, that would make the markets so much better, so much more resilient. And so we should really figure out how to do that. So we started a company called, again, not very creatively named, digital asset holdings, which created the Canton blockchain. Initially, the Canton blockchain was a private permission chain, but last summer it actually became a public chain.

And that chain was designed specifically with tokenization of traditional financial instruments in mind. So it has a couple of characteristics. One is it has configurable privacy. And believe it or not, for people who are in the finance business, they don't want to broadcast to the entire world when they are buying or selling something. I mean, obviously, if it's above the reporting thresholds, you do. So that was kind of a fundamental characteristic of this chain.

It's different than Ethereum or Solana or any of these other things where if you tokenize something and put it on top and you move it around, everybody sees it move around. So that's kind of something we've been working on for quite a while. How big could this get? Like, could it swallow everything? Could you imagine a world in which, given any financial instrument, a stock, a bond, et cetera, that it all sort of ends up on chant? Yeah, I think that everything will be on chain.

Wow. By when? Give us a year. No, I'm always way too early on this stuff. But I think in the next five years, all of these instruments will be on chain. Okay, that's a good question. We will have a live episode in 2030. We'll come back to Chicago. We'll revisit that question. Is the idea with tokenized assets also that you could use that for collateral management

and use it as a way to move collateral? A hundred percent. And so everybody's talking about. about moving to 24-5 or 24-7 markets. And if you want to do that, it's really important to be able to move collateral 24-5 or 24-7 and move variation margin, 25-5 or 24-7. And so, yes, that is a very important use case. So speaking of very exciting, sexy topics in trading, right after you,

we're going to be speaking with Terrick Mansour of Kalshi. And so prediction markets are super hot. Where are you at with them? Is DRW making markets in any of these, in any of the spaces right now? So a million years ago, we actually made markets and prediction markets. I think it was, I don't know, in trade or something. Yeah. And it never went anywhere.

Nobody cared. And I always thought, you know, prediction market should be a thing. Everybody should care. But nobody did. And then Auger came out. And I was like, oh, this is really cool. This is going to take off. And nobody cared.

So it's taken a long time. So at this point, we use it as a reference price. You know, obviously during the election, it was super helpful to use that as a gauge of... Oh, so you were actually using that. Because, you know, we hear stories about institutional investors maybe finding prediction markets useful, perhaps, but you were looking at it. We were definitely looking at it. We were not using it as a hedge. And it was funny.

Shane messaged me and said, hey, you know, it's up on Bloomberg now. And I was like, oh, that's awesome, Shane. The Shane Copeland from Polybara. Yeah, that's right. Yeah. But currently, like, do you foresee, like, are you going to enter, not either in making markets on some of these exchanges and would you get into the sports contracts? I mean, so we're not here.

I think it's highly likely that we'll start trading some of the prediction markets. Some of our competitors already trade in the sports markets pretty actively. We don't. So it's not necessarily a natural fit. But I don't have, like, a. religious opposition to it. Would there be different considerations for trading in a prediction market versus a traditional financial asset? Are there different things you have to think about, either in terms of

like pricing the trade or maybe risk management? Well, I think it depends on what the prediction market is. I mean, if you're trading a prediction market on, I don't know, whether somebody will throw a rubber object onto a WMBA court, then for you. I mean, that's something that people in the audience can control, and so it seems like providing liquidity in that, you would be at a disadvantage. That was a very particular example, by the way. I was going to go with Taylor Swift getting married,

but you went with that one. Well, these are markets that people can directly intervene on. Directly impact, right? As opposed to, for instance. They're trying their own antisocial behavior. That's right. And as opposed to will the Fed cut 25 or 50 or stay on hold, I mean, you can trade that in SOFER.

You can trade that in the Fed Fund's futures. There are some binaries you can trade. And so the prediction market version of that is totally fits in with the risk that we already trade. So we mentioned in the intro, there's going to be this big meeting in D.C. next week. and we just happen to sort of catch a bunch of the participants. When you look at the landscape for these new futures platforms, because that's what they are, right? The CME just has regulation been part of their dominance?

Has regulation made it harder for other entrants to cut into CME margins or volumes? So, I'm trying to ask questions that are going to create some tension around the table next week. Yeah, so here. Oh, yeah, you should hear what Terry said about Howard Lutnik. It'll be on the pocket. I'm sure. I can probably repeat it without having heard it. So once you have a liquid market in something, it becomes a natural monopoly.

It's very hard to move that to a different venue. It's happened before. I was living in London in the mid-90s, and the Bund futures were on the floor of the life. It was this huge trading pit with a bunch of guys pushing and shoving. And over the course of 12 months, the DTB, now called the Urex, was able to move the entire Bund Futures complex onto the computer on a different exchange. Now, I mean, they gave hefty incentives to people. I think they went to all the German banks and they said, don't you dare trade on life anymore. So it's possible.

But I think that these things are generally. I don't think that it's really a regulatory issue that causes them to be sticky. I think it's more just kind of a natural state of affairs. Network effect, I guess. So our theme for this evening is obviously the future of trading. And one of the things that seems to be happening is the sort of intermingling of professional and retail trading. And we, again, talked about that with Terry.

I'm sure we're about to talk about it with the Kalshi CEO. But from your perspective, and again, you started. this career back when I don't think there were any retail traders doing day trading, really. How has that changed the way you think about trading? And can you envision a future where, I don't know, AI fires all of us and we're all going to be just day trading from home as an insurance policy? Robin Hood is really a full employment program. Maybe. For U.S. workers. Yeah. So, I mean, that is a thesis that I have heard is that what's happening is a bunch of, relatively successful people are losing their jobs and they're retiring. But in their retirement,

they decide to just manage their portfolios on Robin Hood. And so there's this surge in trading activity that wouldn't have happened 10 years ago. And it's only going to grow from here. And I don't know, maybe that's right. It feels to me like culturally, because you're talking about, why have prediction markets taken off when they've been around for over 20 years? I think I first heard about them in like 2002 or 2003. They've suddenly taken off. There was never a bright line between what's gambling and what's sort of hedging or what's trading. But there's clearly whatever line that is just feels like it's completely collapsing.

Is this good? Do you have an opinion? Like should should is there is is is. And I don't know if any of our opinions matter on the question because it feels like culturally we're entering this world where everything will be tradable on any app and there's, you know, you're going to see a price for gold future. right next to one day the line on a football match, et cetera. Is it, do we want this world?

So I don't think that there's anything particularly wrong with it, but I am a little bit confused about whether prediction markets and sports are actually consistent with what the Commoddy Exchange Act says is permissible. And so I know that your next guess is. is benefits from his ability to list these contracts. And I don't know if the CFTC is just kind of asleep. And I know they're kind of understaffed now. Or stay on stage.

Yeah, you can ask the questions. Anyway. Or maybe they've decided that actually these are economically important transactions that are consistent with the CEA. It's unclear to me. Amazing. All right. Well, we're going to have to leave it there.

but Don Wilson, founder and CEO of DRW, thank you so much for being here. Really appreciate me. Thank you for having me. That was our conversation with DRW founder and CEO Don Wilson, recorded live on stage in Chicago. I'm Tracy Alloway. You can follow me at Tracy Alloway. And I'm Jill Wisenthall. You can follow me at the stalwart.

Follow our producers, Carmen Rodriguez at Carmen Armand, Dashel Bennett at Dashbot and Kale Brooks. For more odd lots content, go to Bloomberg. com slash oddlots with a daily newsletter and all of our episodes. You can chat about all of these topics 24-7 in our Discord, discord.g slash oddlots. And if you enjoy Oddlots, if you like it when we do these live shows, then please leave us a positive review on your favorite podcast platform. And remember, if you are a Bloomberg subscriber, you can listen to all of our episodes, absolutely add free.

All you need to do is find the Bloomberg channel on Apple Podcasts and follow the instructions there. Thanks for listening.