At first I thought that when an AI service makes money, most of the value should go to the person who built it. But while looking into Kite’s tokenomics, I started thinking about everyone else involved.
Kite has a different setup worth looking at. Its modules bring together AI services, while module owners, validators, and delegators each have different roles in the network. KITE incentives are designed to connect their participation with the module they support.
One thing i noticed about Kite is that 20percent of its total KITE supply is set aside for modules. Some of that goes toward helping developers build, while another part is meant to reward modules for how well they perform. Validators and delegators each select a specific module to stake on, linking their participation to that module. Kite also plans to gradually move from early token-emission rewards toward rewards funded by actual AI service transaction revenue. The protocol is designed to collect a small commission from these transactions, connecting rewards more closely to real network usage.
What I find interesting is that rewards can influence where people choose to contribute. If a module attracts real users and generates more activity, it could become more attractive to builders and participants. But if rewards are the main reason people join, what happens when those incentives become less attractive?
That’s the part I keep coming back to. A network can reward people for participating, but participation alone doesn’t prove that the service is useful. The harder question is whether incentives can help good services grow without keeping weak ones alive just because rewards are available.
To me, the real test isn’t simply how much value an AI economy creates. It’s whether the people receiving rewards are helping create lasting value or just following the incentives.
Who should get the bigger share when an AI service succeeds: the builder who creates it, or the network participants who help it grow?
@KITE AI $KITE #KiteBBW
Kite has a different setup worth looking at. Its modules bring together AI services, while module owners, validators, and delegators each have different roles in the network. KITE incentives are designed to connect their participation with the module they support.
One thing i noticed about Kite is that 20percent of its total KITE supply is set aside for modules. Some of that goes toward helping developers build, while another part is meant to reward modules for how well they perform. Validators and delegators each select a specific module to stake on, linking their participation to that module. Kite also plans to gradually move from early token-emission rewards toward rewards funded by actual AI service transaction revenue. The protocol is designed to collect a small commission from these transactions, connecting rewards more closely to real network usage.
What I find interesting is that rewards can influence where people choose to contribute. If a module attracts real users and generates more activity, it could become more attractive to builders and participants. But if rewards are the main reason people join, what happens when those incentives become less attractive?
That’s the part I keep coming back to. A network can reward people for participating, but participation alone doesn’t prove that the service is useful. The harder question is whether incentives can help good services grow without keeping weak ones alive just because rewards are available.
To me, the real test isn’t simply how much value an AI economy creates. It’s whether the people receiving rewards are helping create lasting value or just following the incentives.
Who should get the bigger share when an AI service succeeds: the builder who creates it, or the network participants who help it grow?
@KITE AI $KITE #KiteBBW