The article makes a HUGE assumption. They spot an inconsistency between two prices, and decide that the fair market value must be the very highest part of the

The article makes a HUGE assumption. They spot an inconsistency between two prices, and decide that the fair market value must be the very highest part of the spread. Anything under this is therefore "under-priced". Is it not possible instead that people are overpaying for the popular ones through sub-optimal bids - instead of simply assuming that only these inflexible/least sophisticated bidding strategies represent the fair market value. They actually go further. They assume that AWS could realize this value, and that encouraging more flexible bids through tooling etc. would move everyone to the top of the spread, instead of smoothing it out towards the average. And that what is essentially a price-increase can be achieved without hurting the overall value (price-performance vs. flexibility). Given the entire point of this is auctioning unused cycles at a discount, clearly any overall increase would decrease the overall demand. Having said this it's a great article. I think the overall quality of the article made it so surprising to see this missed.