Who ultimately pays the bills for AI computing services? “AI is booming” is not enough to answer that. Users may pay for computing resources, or they may pay for results delivered on time. In either case, demand is only validated when there are actual payments and repeat demand. Connecting resources to a network and having someone submit a task are still very different from customers continuing to pay.
Rolling 24 hours, $TAO +0.64%.
Rolling 24 hours, $RENDER +0.57%.
Rolling 24 hours, $FET -0.97%.
These quotes going up and down tell us nothing about whose product is more popular, nor do they prove any change in customers or computing orders. To assess product demand, we need to know who is paying, what they are getting, whether delivery is reliable, and whether they will buy again. To assess supply and demand for computing power, we need to know whether resources can be matched to tasks and delivered continuously at a reasonable cost. The available information gives no details on customers, revenue, utilization, or formal product progress for these three projects, so I won't claim that demand has been validated.
Network incentives can attract suppliers, but we still need to ask who funds the rewards and what was delivered in return; and whether resources will remain once the incentives are reduced. More resources do not mean more buyers, and an active network does not mean people are repeatedly purchasing services. Subsidies can get supply off the ground, but they cannot pay customers' bills.
Token value also needs to be assessed separately: Is the token required to use the service? Where do the fees go? What real function does the token serve? Even if people use an AI product, that does not automatically mean value flows to the token. Growth in a company's AI business or rising industry demand for computing power cannot be directly counted as demand for these tokens, either. More than concepts and quotes, I'd like to see an account that adds up: who paid, what they got, and whether they'll buy again.
Rolling 24 hours, $TAO +0.64%.
Rolling 24 hours, $RENDER +0.57%.
Rolling 24 hours, $FET -0.97%.
These quotes going up and down tell us nothing about whose product is more popular, nor do they prove any change in customers or computing orders. To assess product demand, we need to know who is paying, what they are getting, whether delivery is reliable, and whether they will buy again. To assess supply and demand for computing power, we need to know whether resources can be matched to tasks and delivered continuously at a reasonable cost. The available information gives no details on customers, revenue, utilization, or formal product progress for these three projects, so I won't claim that demand has been validated.
Network incentives can attract suppliers, but we still need to ask who funds the rewards and what was delivered in return; and whether resources will remain once the incentives are reduced. More resources do not mean more buyers, and an active network does not mean people are repeatedly purchasing services. Subsidies can get supply off the ground, but they cannot pay customers' bills.
Token value also needs to be assessed separately: Is the token required to use the service? Where do the fees go? What real function does the token serve? Even if people use an AI product, that does not automatically mean value flows to the token. Growth in a company's AI business or rising industry demand for computing power cannot be directly counted as demand for these tokens, either. More than concepts and quotes, I'd like to see an account that adds up: who paid, what they got, and whether they'll buy again.
