I've been stuck on a question lately.
And the more I think about it, the more it feels off.
Everyone's buzzing about the AI space.
Talking models.
Talking computing power.
Talking Agents.
But hardly anyone's discussing another thing:
If AI ultimately becomes infrastructure, who will be the new "toll booths"?
That's where the rub is.
The history of the internet has played out many times before.
When search engines first popped up, people thought the value was in the webpages.
Later, they realized the value was in the traffic gateways.
When e-commerce emerged, folks thought the value was in the products.
Eventually, they saw the value was in the platforms.
Social media is the same.
Users create content.
Platforms get the pricing power.
The more I dive into projects like @OpenGradient on-chain AI, the stranger it gets.
Because AI is retracing the same steps.
Data comes from users.
Training comes from the community.
Reasoning is completed by nodes.
But where will the ultimate value flow?
I can't make heads or tails of it.
In theory, on-chain records should allow contributions to be tracked.
Identities to be verified.
Actions to be validated.
Value to be allocated.
But here's the kicker:
Tracking contributions and reaping rewards are two different things.
The biggest contradiction in Web2 was never that there were too few value creators.
It was that there were too few value receivers.
If AI Agents generate income in the future,
will these earnings be distributed according to contributions?
Or will they ultimately concentrate again in the hands of a few with traffic gateways?
One statistic has me a bit uneasy.
In the past twenty years of global internet business history, almost all network effects have ultimately led to centralization.
The larger the scale,
the higher the concentration.
The clearer the winner-takes-all dynamic.
So why should AI networks be any different?
Many people focus on price when discussing $OPG .
But I'm looking at something else.
If on-chain AI ends up succeeding,
is it the tech logic that succeeds,
or the value distribution logic?
If it's the latter that doesn't change,
then is blockchain really reconstructing production relationships,
or just recording old ones?
The more I research, the stranger it feels.
Will AI be the first network in history that can truly return value to contributors?
Or are we just swapping for a new narrative?
#OPG $OPG @OpenGradient
And the more I think about it, the more it feels off.
Everyone's buzzing about the AI space.
Talking models.
Talking computing power.
Talking Agents.
But hardly anyone's discussing another thing:
If AI ultimately becomes infrastructure, who will be the new "toll booths"?
That's where the rub is.
The history of the internet has played out many times before.
When search engines first popped up, people thought the value was in the webpages.
Later, they realized the value was in the traffic gateways.
When e-commerce emerged, folks thought the value was in the products.
Eventually, they saw the value was in the platforms.
Social media is the same.
Users create content.
Platforms get the pricing power.
The more I dive into projects like @OpenGradient on-chain AI, the stranger it gets.
Because AI is retracing the same steps.
Data comes from users.
Training comes from the community.
Reasoning is completed by nodes.
But where will the ultimate value flow?
I can't make heads or tails of it.
In theory, on-chain records should allow contributions to be tracked.
Identities to be verified.
Actions to be validated.
Value to be allocated.
But here's the kicker:
Tracking contributions and reaping rewards are two different things.
The biggest contradiction in Web2 was never that there were too few value creators.
It was that there were too few value receivers.
If AI Agents generate income in the future,
will these earnings be distributed according to contributions?
Or will they ultimately concentrate again in the hands of a few with traffic gateways?
One statistic has me a bit uneasy.
In the past twenty years of global internet business history, almost all network effects have ultimately led to centralization.
The larger the scale,
the higher the concentration.
The clearer the winner-takes-all dynamic.
So why should AI networks be any different?
Many people focus on price when discussing $OPG .
But I'm looking at something else.
If on-chain AI ends up succeeding,
is it the tech logic that succeeds,
or the value distribution logic?
If it's the latter that doesn't change,
then is blockchain really reconstructing production relationships,
or just recording old ones?
The more I research, the stranger it feels.
Will AI be the first network in history that can truly return value to contributors?
Or are we just swapping for a new narrative?
#OPG $OPG @OpenGradient