The meme could go like this: The AI assistant says, “I’ll save you time.” In the next panel, the human starts assigning it tasks, monitoring its compute, and filling out reward forms. Finally, the assistant asks, “Then who’s going to save you time?” Behind the punchline is a very practical question: by adding more computing power, whose problem is actually being solved—and what problem is it?
Binance spot rolling 24-hour volume: $TAO -4.01% (rolling 24 hours). Binance spot rolling 24-hour volume: $RENDER -1.81% (rolling 24 hours). Binance spot rolling 24-hour volume: $FET -4.84% (rolling 24 hours). Prices only show how the market moved during this period. They don’t prove that network tasks have decreased or demand has weakened, nor can the gains and losses of all three be attributed to the same cause.
I’d look at computing-power supply and product demand separately: the ability to connect resources only shows that the supply side is in place; demand is validated only when people keep paying for useful results. Incentives can attract participants, but if participation depends mainly on rewards, we still need to see whether anyone is willing to supply or use the service once those rewards disappear. At this point, there’s no information confirming the customers, revenue, or repeat purchases for any of the three.
Only then comes token value: even if people use the product, we still need to see whether the fees or other value generated by that use flow through to the token via a clear mechanism. Rules and data are essential links in the chain; you can’t jump straight from “AI needs computing power” to “therefore the token benefits.”
So the question I’m more interested in now isn’t whether the computing-power story is big enough, but who’s paying, whether that demand will last, and how the fees flow back to network participants. Until those questions are answered, how busy the tools are and whether the product is useful remain two different things.
Binance spot rolling 24-hour volume: $TAO -4.01% (rolling 24 hours). Binance spot rolling 24-hour volume: $RENDER -1.81% (rolling 24 hours). Binance spot rolling 24-hour volume: $FET -4.84% (rolling 24 hours). Prices only show how the market moved during this period. They don’t prove that network tasks have decreased or demand has weakened, nor can the gains and losses of all three be attributed to the same cause.
I’d look at computing-power supply and product demand separately: the ability to connect resources only shows that the supply side is in place; demand is validated only when people keep paying for useful results. Incentives can attract participants, but if participation depends mainly on rewards, we still need to see whether anyone is willing to supply or use the service once those rewards disappear. At this point, there’s no information confirming the customers, revenue, or repeat purchases for any of the three.
Only then comes token value: even if people use the product, we still need to see whether the fees or other value generated by that use flow through to the token via a clear mechanism. Rules and data are essential links in the chain; you can’t jump straight from “AI needs computing power” to “therefore the token benefits.”
So the question I’m more interested in now isn’t whether the computing-power story is big enough, but who’s paying, whether that demand will last, and how the fees flow back to network participants. Until those questions are answered, how busy the tools are and whether the product is useful remain two different things.