In AI computing networks, the question most easily glossed over with the phrase “there’s demand” is who actually paid. Connecting computing power to a network shows that supply may exist; a successful task only proves that this particular delivery worked. To say product demand is established, we still need to see buyers paying for a clearly defined service, verifiable results, and a willingness to buy again. The materials available provide no customer, revenue, utilization, or formal product-development data for these three projects, so I won’t fill in commercial achievements on their behalf.
Over a rolling 24-hour period: $TAO +2.33%. Over a rolling 24-hour period: $RENDER +2.04%. Over a rolling 24-hour period: $FET +1.87%. These are changes in three spot quotes over their respective rolling 24-hour windows—not data on orders, computing-power usage, or repeat purchases. Their moving in the same direction doesn’t show that they serve the same buyers, let alone validate product demand on the basis of price movements.
Computing supply and demand must be considered separately from user demand. Whether resources can match tasks and deliver reliably is a supply question; who is willing to keep paying for a service is a demand question. Network incentives can attract resources, but we still need to ask who funds the rewards, what participants deliver, and whether supply remains when rewards are reduced. Access driven by subsidies is not the same as customer payment.
Token value is another question altogether. Specific rules are needed to establish whether a service must use the token, where fees ultimately go, and whether holders have clearly defined rights. Even if people use the product, that doesn’t automatically mean token holders benefit; growth in a company’s AI business cannot simply be credited to these tokens either.
I’m interested in AI, but more than labels like “computing network,” I want to see a payment that can be verified: who paid, what they got, and whether they bought again. Supply, demand, incentives, and token value cannot all be answered with the same number.
Over a rolling 24-hour period: $TAO +2.33%. Over a rolling 24-hour period: $RENDER +2.04%. Over a rolling 24-hour period: $FET +1.87%. These are changes in three spot quotes over their respective rolling 24-hour windows—not data on orders, computing-power usage, or repeat purchases. Their moving in the same direction doesn’t show that they serve the same buyers, let alone validate product demand on the basis of price movements.
Computing supply and demand must be considered separately from user demand. Whether resources can match tasks and deliver reliably is a supply question; who is willing to keep paying for a service is a demand question. Network incentives can attract resources, but we still need to ask who funds the rewards, what participants deliver, and whether supply remains when rewards are reduced. Access driven by subsidies is not the same as customer payment.
Token value is another question altogether. Specific rules are needed to establish whether a service must use the token, where fees ultimately go, and whether holders have clearly defined rights. Even if people use the product, that doesn’t automatically mean token holders benefit; growth in a company’s AI business cannot simply be credited to these tokens either.
I’m interested in AI, but more than labels like “computing network,” I want to see a payment that can be verified: who paid, what they got, and whether they bought again. Supply, demand, incentives, and token value cannot all be answered with the same number.
