AI tools aren’t necessarily busiest when they have the most users: the dispatch board neatly assigns tasks, while people nearby are still checking the results, and in the end the question that pops up is still, “Who’s going to pay?” This meme is a pretty good reflection of the industry right now—the workflow is up and running, which only shows that the tool can do things; it doesn’t prove that anyone is willing to keep paying for it.
Binance spot, rolling 24-hour period: $TAO -7.12% (rolling 24 hours); Binance spot, rolling 24-hour period: $RENDER -6.50% (rolling 24 hours); Binance spot, rolling 24-hour period: $FET -7.75% (rolling 24 hours). These are the price changes of three different tokens, not data on computing-power utilization, customer payments, or revenue, and they don’t let us conclude that the tokens fell for the same reason.
I’d look at the different parts of the equation separately: whether computing-power supply has been connected, whether the product solves a real problem, whether users are willing to pay for the results, and whether demand will recur. Network incentives may attract resources and participants, but subsidies aren’t the same as customer payments; the fact that the industry needs AI computing power doesn’t mean a particular network has demonstrated sustained demand. The information available doesn’t provide customer, revenue, or repeat-purchase data for any of these three, so none of them can answer those questions for the project at this point.
Even if people use a product, that value doesn’t necessarily accrue to the token; we also need to see a clear mechanism for fees or other value to flow through. Rather than just sticking “AI” next to a project’s name, I’d like to see who is paying, why they’re paying, and how value flows back to network participants. The price decline alone can’t answer these questions; the product and the books each need to provide their own evidence.
Binance spot, rolling 24-hour period: $TAO -7.12% (rolling 24 hours); Binance spot, rolling 24-hour period: $RENDER -6.50% (rolling 24 hours); Binance spot, rolling 24-hour period: $FET -7.75% (rolling 24 hours). These are the price changes of three different tokens, not data on computing-power utilization, customer payments, or revenue, and they don’t let us conclude that the tokens fell for the same reason.
I’d look at the different parts of the equation separately: whether computing-power supply has been connected, whether the product solves a real problem, whether users are willing to pay for the results, and whether demand will recur. Network incentives may attract resources and participants, but subsidies aren’t the same as customer payments; the fact that the industry needs AI computing power doesn’t mean a particular network has demonstrated sustained demand. The information available doesn’t provide customer, revenue, or repeat-purchase data for any of these three, so none of them can answer those questions for the project at this point.
Even if people use a product, that value doesn’t necessarily accrue to the token; we also need to see a clear mechanism for fees or other value to flow through. Rather than just sticking “AI” next to a project’s name, I’d like to see who is paying, why they’re paying, and how value flows back to network participants. The price decline alone can’t answer these questions; the product and the books each need to provide their own evidence.