I'm stuck on a question.
And the more I think about it, the more uncomfortable it gets.
The AI space has been emphasizing 'decentralization'.
But the businesses that really make money often head towards centralization.
Are these two things inherently contradictory?
I've gone through the development history of many internet companies.
I found a really interesting phenomenon.
In the early days, competition relied on technology.
In the mid-stage, competition relied on scale.
In the later stage, competition relied on entry points.
Search engines are like this.
Social platforms are like this.
E-commerce platforms are also like this.
The problem lies right here.
AI seems to be repeating the same path.
Many people believe that the most valuable thing in the future is the model.
But what has happened over the past two years is exactly the opposite.
Models are becoming more and more open-source.
Inference costs are getting lower.
Parameter differences are becoming smaller.
What is actually starting to get more expensive, ironically, is user entry points.
Because whoever controls the users controls the demand.
Whoever controls the demand has the pricing power.
I can never quite figure this out.
If in the future AI Agents can migrate freely.
If inference capabilities gradually converge.
If technical barriers continue to lower.
Then what ultimately determines the ownership of value?
Is it the Agent itself?
Or is it the entry point connecting the Agent and the users?
While researching @OpenGradient , I kept pondering this contradiction.
On-chain can record behaviors.
It can record contributions.
It can record transactions.
But recording and controlling are not the same thing.
The biggest winners of the past internet era didn't necessarily have the best technology.
Instead, they had the strongest distribution capabilities.
So a new question arises.
If a real AI network forms in the future.
Will value be distributed according to contributions?
Or according to traffic?
If the two clash.
Who will ultimately win?
Many people focus on the technical route when discussing $OPG .
But I find myself increasingly focused on another thing.
In the future AI world, is the moat the intelligence itself?
Or is it the demand entry point?
If the answer is the latter.
Then will the value logic of on-chain AI converge with the internet logic of the past twenty years?
#OPG $OPG @OpenGradient
And the more I think about it, the more uncomfortable it gets.
The AI space has been emphasizing 'decentralization'.
But the businesses that really make money often head towards centralization.
Are these two things inherently contradictory?
I've gone through the development history of many internet companies.
I found a really interesting phenomenon.
In the early days, competition relied on technology.
In the mid-stage, competition relied on scale.
In the later stage, competition relied on entry points.
Search engines are like this.
Social platforms are like this.
E-commerce platforms are also like this.
The problem lies right here.
AI seems to be repeating the same path.
Many people believe that the most valuable thing in the future is the model.
But what has happened over the past two years is exactly the opposite.
Models are becoming more and more open-source.
Inference costs are getting lower.
Parameter differences are becoming smaller.
What is actually starting to get more expensive, ironically, is user entry points.
Because whoever controls the users controls the demand.
Whoever controls the demand has the pricing power.
I can never quite figure this out.
If in the future AI Agents can migrate freely.
If inference capabilities gradually converge.
If technical barriers continue to lower.
Then what ultimately determines the ownership of value?
Is it the Agent itself?
Or is it the entry point connecting the Agent and the users?
While researching @OpenGradient , I kept pondering this contradiction.
On-chain can record behaviors.
It can record contributions.
It can record transactions.
But recording and controlling are not the same thing.
The biggest winners of the past internet era didn't necessarily have the best technology.
Instead, they had the strongest distribution capabilities.
So a new question arises.
If a real AI network forms in the future.
Will value be distributed according to contributions?
Or according to traffic?
If the two clash.
Who will ultimately win?
Many people focus on the technical route when discussing $OPG .
But I find myself increasingly focused on another thing.
In the future AI world, is the moat the intelligence itself?
Or is it the demand entry point?
If the answer is the latter.
Then will the value logic of on-chain AI converge with the internet logic of the past twenty years?
#OPG $OPG @OpenGradient