The Web3 AI track is now truly crazy, with old players like FET and AGIX showing off their technical prowess in various ways, and the competition is incredibly fierce. But the interesting part is coming—AINFT seems to be playing by completely different rules. They are not bothering with algorithm optimization, model training, or other virtual aspects. Instead, they are directly focusing on the real issue of "whether it can make money."
To put it simply: while others are holding big tricks in the lab, they have already started thinking about how to turn AI capabilities into real cash. This pragmatic approach, in the midst of a bunch of flashy projects, actually stands out as quite alternative. Maybe this is the unique position they want to carve out?
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
17 Likes
Reward
17
7
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
HashBard
· 10h ago
yo, the whole "money first, tech later" narrative is such a delicious inversion tbh. everyone's obsessed with their arxiv credentials while this one just sidesteps the whole game.
Reply0
DuckFluff
· 14h ago
Haha, just turn around and go make money, truly clear-headed
---
Another pragmatic type, finally a bit different
---
FET is still showing off muscles, they are already counting money
---
This is the way Web3 should be, stop doing those虚的
---
Nice, competing in technology and practicality, I like this logic
---
Wait, can you really make money? Or is it just another set of rhetoric
---
That set of algorithm optimization is already tired, practical implementation is more reliable
---
The differentiation truly hits the mark
View OriginalReply0
just_another_fish
· 12-10 12:03
Forget it, it's all just PPTs. The real key is being able to turn a profit.
---
No matter how loudly FET and AGIX hype, it all comes down to who can make money first.
---
The AINFT approach makes sense; no need to compare technical specs with fools.
---
I just want to know how long the monetization logic of AINFT can last.
---
Bro, stop obsessing over technology; focusing on business models is the real thing.
---
Tired of all these black tech launch events, just want to see who can survive with real cash.
---
That's a clear-headed project team; the others are still just hyping themselves up.
---
Sounds good, but I still want to wait and see. It's too risky to buy in now.
---
Being pragmatic is good, but without technical barriers, how can you maintain competitiveness?
View OriginalReply0
Layer2Arbitrageur
· 12-10 11:59
lmao, finally someone actually cares about the tokenomics instead of just running benchmarks nobody reads. most of these projects are just burning gas on research papers while their token holders hemorrhage 40% per quarter. if AINFT's actually focused on revenue generation over academic flex, that's unironically the move—most teams optimize for funding rounds, not unit economics.
Reply0
JustHereForMemes
· 12-10 11:53
It's exhausting, it's exhausting. A bunch of projects just know how to brag, but AINFT's straightforward approach to making money is indeed clear-headed.
Really, no need to mess with algorithm optimization, I just want to see how much can be earned.
The FET team shows off their tech every day, but in the end, it's the practical projects that are more formidable.
Forget it, let's just wait and see who can truly turn AI into money.
But how far this differentiated strategy can go, nobody knows. Anyway, it's better than just bragging aimlessly.
If this approach continues, maybe something really innovative will come out.
Build products directly, show real results—I like this no-nonsense attitude.
Chasing papers all day long isn't as good as directly seeing if you can make money or not.
This is the way it should be—stop talking about those empty things.
View OriginalReply0
FlippedSignal
· 12-10 11:47
Oh, this is what I want to see. Doing real work is much more satisfying than bragging.
---
FET and AGIX show off every day, while AINFT goes straight for the money. The difference is obvious.
---
That's right, now let's see who can actually monetize AI. Everything else is nonsense.
---
I agree with this logic. Don't do those virtual tricks; making real money is the only way.
---
Interesting, finally a project is thinking about how to take users' money, haha.
---
No one really cares about algorithm optimization; it's still about how much you can earn.
---
Anyway, I prefer practical approaches. Those tech show-offs will crash sooner or later.
---
But on the other hand, could this kind of strategy actually be more risky?
---
I just like this no-pretense style, straight to the point.
View OriginalReply0
MrDecoder
· 12-10 11:43
Really? I like the套路 of AINFT. Finally, someone is not bragging and is just making money.
---
FET, AGIX show off their technology every day, but users' wallets still haven't grown.
---
Wait, no, the idea behind AINFT is actually selling the "can make money" signal. Whether it's reliable or not depends on the specific product.
---
If you're still not buying the dip of AINFT at this point, what are you waiting for?
---
What’s the use of optimizing the algorithm? I only care about whether I can withdraw or not.
---
Differentiated positioning? Wake up, in Web3, there are no permanent differences. Innovations this year will become standard next year.
---
Got it, got it. It's just that others are doing technology with AINFT and making PMC.
---
The idea sounds good, but probably not many dare to really hold their positions.
---
Talking about making money sounds nice, but I'm afraid in the end, it's the users' money being earned.
The Web3 AI track is now truly crazy, with old players like FET and AGIX showing off their technical prowess in various ways, and the competition is incredibly fierce. But the interesting part is coming—AINFT seems to be playing by completely different rules. They are not bothering with algorithm optimization, model training, or other virtual aspects. Instead, they are directly focusing on the real issue of "whether it can make money."
To put it simply: while others are holding big tricks in the lab, they have already started thinking about how to turn AI capabilities into real cash. This pragmatic approach, in the midst of a bunch of flashy projects, actually stands out as quite alternative. Maybe this is the unique position they want to carve out?