AI products say they need computing power. I’d rather ask first: who is paying, and are they buying machine time or results delivered to specification? The fact that someone needs computing power doesn’t mean someone will keep paying for a particular network; completing one task only proves that particular delivery was feasible. Rolling 24 hours, $TAO +0.42%. Rolling 24 hours, $RENDER -0.69%. Rolling 24 hours, $FET +0.49%. These are only changes in spot prices, not orders, revenue, or computing-power utilization, and the direction of price movements is no proof of the strength of demand.
Golden Finance reported on November 1, 2026, citing Tokenomist, that tokens scheduled for large linear unlocks over the next month (monthly unlock value exceeding $10 million) include TAO, with a total unlock value of more than $1.731 billion. This total is not the amount for TAO alone, nor does it mean the unlock has already occurred; the supply schedule is worth watching, but cannot by itself explain this round of price movements.
To verify demand, we need to know who is paying, whether delivery is reliable, and whether customers will buy again. The supply and demand for computing power depend on whether resources can be matched to tasks and whether the payer accepts the cost. The information available does not provide details on customers, revenue, utilization, or formal product progress for these three tokens, so it is currently impossible to confirm which demand has been validated. Growth in a company’s AI business also cannot be directly taken as evidence of demand for these tokens.
Network incentives are another matter: who funds the rewards, what services do they secure, and will resources remain once incentives are reduced? Rewards can attract resources, but they cannot pay on behalf of customers; someone providing computing power does not mean someone will keep buying it. The value of the token must also be checked separately: must services be paid for with the token, where do the fees go, and what real function does the token serve? Even if people use the product, that value does not automatically flow to the token.
I’m interested in AI, but rather than seeing projects labeled as such, I’d like to see a verifiable transaction: who paid, what did they get, and will they buy again?
Golden Finance reported on November 1, 2026, citing Tokenomist, that tokens scheduled for large linear unlocks over the next month (monthly unlock value exceeding $10 million) include TAO, with a total unlock value of more than $1.731 billion. This total is not the amount for TAO alone, nor does it mean the unlock has already occurred; the supply schedule is worth watching, but cannot by itself explain this round of price movements.
To verify demand, we need to know who is paying, whether delivery is reliable, and whether customers will buy again. The supply and demand for computing power depend on whether resources can be matched to tasks and whether the payer accepts the cost. The information available does not provide details on customers, revenue, utilization, or formal product progress for these three tokens, so it is currently impossible to confirm which demand has been validated. Growth in a company’s AI business also cannot be directly taken as evidence of demand for these tokens.
Network incentives are another matter: who funds the rewards, what services do they secure, and will resources remain once incentives are reduced? Rewards can attract resources, but they cannot pay on behalf of customers; someone providing computing power does not mean someone will keep buying it. The value of the token must also be checked separately: must services be paid for with the token, where do the fees go, and what real function does the token serve? Even if people use the product, that value does not automatically flow to the token.
I’m interested in AI, but rather than seeing projects labeled as such, I’d like to see a verifiable transaction: who paid, what did they get, and will they buy again?
