3 ms·
It is like questioning the purpose of shovels, because surely if shovels generate so much wealth for the miners, wouldn‘t shovel companies ask for a percentage
by grumbelbart2 3mo ago
It is like questioning the purpose of shovels, because surely if shovels generate so much wealth for the miners, wouldn‘t shovel companies ask for a percentage of the gold (say 30%) instead of selling shovels at a unit price?
- Havoc 3mo agoIt's not an either or thing. Value chains have an equilibrium like anything else - naturally balances out. You don't see every step being abandoned because everyone converged on the most profitable link in the real world. >wouldn‘t shovel companies ask for a percentage of the gold (say 30%) They could go that route. Nvidia is doing that right now https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/02/nvidia-plans-to-offer-start-up-customers-access-to-revenue-sharing-deals.html https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/02/nvidia-plans-to-offer-start-... But saying just because openai didn't adopt a particular business model therefore tokens must be worthless seems like a stretch. Maybe it was regulatory. Maybe they just don't want to be a conglomerate of that sort. Could be any number of reasons.