eBay ex-datacenter A100 rack liquidation (32x A100 40GB compute-node rack, repeated lots)

USED, WHOLE RACK: 4 compute nodes x 8 GPUs = 32x NVIDIA A100 40GB per rack, including the servers/chassis - NOT bare cards. $249,000.00 or Best Offer per rack, captured 2026-10-03. Implied $7,781 per GPU, versus ~$2,500 for a bare used 40GB SXM4 module and ~$3,000-$4,000 for the same GPU with its host server in other listings - i.e. the rack premium is the node/host cost, not GPU scarcity. Warranty: none. Seller does not accept returns. PRICE CLASS: this is an ASKING price captured from a live listing or product page, i.e. the price at which a seller advertises the part for sale right now. It is NOT a sold/completed transaction price, NOT an auction result and NOT a dealer cost. A realised price on the same day would generally be lower, and for used or refurbished parts the gap between ask and realised is typically wide PERISHABLE-FIGURE STAMP (added 2026-10-04, uniform across data/supply/ so it is greppable). PRICE CLASS: ASKING price captured from a live listing or product page - the price at which a seller advertises the item right now. NOT a sold/completed transaction price, NOT an auction result and NOT a dealer cost; for used or refurbished parts the gap between ask and realised is typically wide. OBSERVED: 2026-10-03 RE-VERIFY BY: 2027-01-04 - the repo's quarterly re-verification bar. After that date this figure is presumed drifted and must be re-checked against its source before it is quoted again. A price without its observation date is noise; this stamp exists so a reader can tell a fresh figure from a stale one without reading prose. UNIT: USED, WHOLE RACK: 4 compute nodes x 8 GPUs = 32x NVIDIA A100 40GB per rack, including the servers/chassis READING RULE: UNIT TRAP: price_usd is the WHOLE 32-GPU RACK price including servers and chassis, NOT a bare-card price and NOT a per-GPU price. Any per-GPU figure taken from it is a DIVISION, not an observed card price.

lead_time_weeks is null because no lead time applies: this is a secondary/auction market priced per listing. What a buyer faces is listing availability at the moment of purchase - the record's availability field is a snapshot of what a seller posted, not a schedulable delivery date - plus whatever shipping the listing states. An auction close date is not a lead time.

EAR 3A090.a / 3A090.b (advanced-computing ICs) + EAR 742.6(a)(6)(iii)(A) (D:5/Macau end-user and ultimate-parent) + EAR 744.23 (Entity List screening) + EAR 744.6 (Unverified/MEU lists)

LAYER 1, EXPORT LICENCE: under the Jan 2026 BIS rule 91 FR 1684 (effective 2026-01-15) the license review policy for advanced-computing commodities with TPP < 21,000 AND total DRAM bandwidth < 6,500 GB/s - the NVIDIA H200 and AMD MI325X are the rule's named examples - moved from PRESUMPTION OF DENIAL to CASE-BY-CASE REVIEW, but only for exports FROM THE UNITED STATES to end users located in China or Macau, and only against six exporter certifications filed via SNAP-R before shipment: (1) items below the thresholds with the count of units shipped in the US; (2) sufficient US supply, judged 'taking into account normal lead times'; (3) no diversion of global foundry capacity away from US end users; (4) aggregate China+Macau shipments <= 50% of total US end-use shipments of that product; (5) no end-user or use prohibition; (6) the consignee runs rigorous KYC. Every shipment must then pass a qualified third-party testing lab - US-headquartered, not controlled by a D:5/Macau entity, no ownership stake in any party, qualification revocable by BIS at any time - verifying TPP, total DRAM bandwidth, interconnect bandwidth and copackaged DRAM capacity. Reexports and in-country transfers of the same chips to China/Macau REMAIN PRESUMPTION OF DENIAL. LAYER 2, END-USER AND PARENT SCREENING: per BIS guidance of 2026-05-31 a licence is required where the consignee is HEADQUARTERED in Country Group D:5 (15 CFR part 740 supplement no. 1) or Macau OR whose ULTIMATE PARENT COMPANY is so headquartered - even when the consignee itself sits outside D:5/Macau. The requirement sits at EAR 742.6(a)(6)(iii)(A) for destinations outside the US, with an exception available only under the license exception at 740.2(a)(9)(ii). The destination country alone therefore never answers the question; screen the parent. LAYER 3, REMAINING LIMITS: exports to D:5/Macau-headquartered OR -parented entities stay PRESUMPTION OF DENIAL wherever the buyer sits, and the AI Diffusion Rule that would have set a country-tier structure on who could lawfully buy what was RESCINDED on 2025-05-13 and is not being enforced, so any recorded status rests on the instruments named here rather than on tiering.

ACCELERATOR-ID CORRECTION (2026-10-03, parent agent): this record's price_basis states 4 nodes x 8 = 32x A100 **40GB**, but accelerator_ids read nvidia-a100-80gb-sxm4. Corrected to the 40GB part; no 40GB SXM4 accelerator record existed at the time so the mislabel was the only option. The 80GB and 40GB parts differ ~2x in price and capacity, so the mislabel was material. The clearest real-world example of the ex-datacenter liquidation pattern. Quantity 'More than 10 available' makes this a REPEATED-LOT channel, not a one-of-a-kind - so the $249,000 figure is a repeatable market price, not an auction artefact. Free FedEx Ground; seller will not accept returns, which is the norm for liquidation lots and means you absorb all DOA risk. Seller 20,700 feedback. HOW TO READ THE NUMBER: at $7,781/GPU the rack is roughly 3x the bare-module price, so this is the route to buy A100s WITH servers, not a cheap route to A100s. It only makes sense if you need integrated nodes. Same seller's adjacent listings show the same structure at other scales: 8x40GB HGX baseboard $70,170.51 (~$8,771/GPU), 8x80GB HGX baseboard $213,039.54 (~$26,630/GPU), 8x80GB HGX GDX H100 baseboard $341,872.75 (~$42,734/GPU), HPE server with 8x V100 SXM2 NVLink ring at $18,000 pre-owned (~$2,250/GPU). The V100 figure is the useful sanity check - ex-datacenter value tracks generation hard, and an 8-V100 server landing near bare-4090 territory is the floor of this market, not a special case. EXPORT CONTROL (2026-10-04, mechanism-level; sources spl-eccn-3a090-ccl, spl-bis-2026-01-advanced-computing-case-by-case, spl-bis-2026-05-d5-guidance): these parts classify under ECCN 3A090.a/.b, whose thresholds are 'total processing performance' (TPP) >= 4800, or TPP >= 1600 with performance density >= 5.92 (the .b band is TPP 2400-4800 with performance density 1.6-5.92, or TPP >= 1600 with performance density 3.2-5.92). The mechanism has THREE layers and all three must be cleared, not just one: (a) LICENSE FOR EXPORT FROM THE US - controlled by the January 2026 rule (91 FR 1684, effective 2026-01-15), which moved TPP < 21,000 AND total DRAM bandwidth < 6,500 GB/s parts from presumption of denial to CASE-BY-CASE REVIEW, but only for exports from the US to end users in China/Macau, and only against six exporter certifications - US supply sufficiency judged 'taking into account normal lead times', no diversion of foundry capacity away from US end users, aggregate China+Macau shipments capped at 50% of US end-use shipments, no end-user prohibition, consignee KYC procedures, and prior verification by a qualified third-party US testing lab of TPP, total DRAM bandwidth, interconnect bandwidth and copackaged DRAM capacity; (b) END-USER AND PARENT-COMPANY SCREENING under 742.6(a)(6)(iii)(A) - per BIS guidance of 2026-05-31 a licence is required where the consignee is HEADQUARTERED in Country Group D:5 or Macau OR ITS ULTIMATE PARENT is so headquartered, EVEN IF the consignee itself is outside D:5/Macau, which means the destination country alone never answers the question; (c) THE LIMITS THAT REMAIN - reexports and in-country transfers of the same chips to China/Macau remain PRESUMPTION OF DENIAL, and exports to D:5/Macau-headquartered or -parented entities remain presumption of denial wherever the buyer sits. The Jan-2025 AI Diffusion Rule was rescinded and not enforced from 2025-05-13, but that rescission did not remove (a) or (b). LEAD TIME: null, and deliberately so. A marketplace or big-box reseller publishes STOCK STATE, not a lead time - where this record shows in-stock that means the listing was available on the observation date, and where it shows backorder no week window is published at all. Converting one into the other would be an invention. The one exception in the whole chain is CDW, which does print windows (source spl-cdw-published-lead-times-gpu-2026-10); note that even there the scarcest SKUs - the RTX PRO 6000 96GB cards and DGX Spark - read 'Item Backordered' with NO estimate, so scarcity and lead time are inversely related in what distributors actually publish. Probe log in source spl-negative-no-oem-publishes-lead-time.