2026-01-03 20:22:32

Everyone is talking about 'openness', but most platforms still keep their own small gardens enclosed. I have seen many projects, but truly treating AI as infrastructure is rare. What is the difference here? In traditional models, models and computing power generate revenue just by existing—that's a bit absurd. Conversely, some projects only profit when their models and computing capabilities are actually used, which is a proper incentive design. This seemingly small difference actually determines whether the entire ecosystem is open or closed, innovative or monopolized.

View Original

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.

20 Likes

Reward
20
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

WalletDoomsDay

· 01-05 12:49

That's how it is. Most projects claiming to be open are actually just a false proposition. Who would want to genuinely build when they can just sit back and make money?

View OriginalReply0

DAOTruant

· 01-03 20:52

In plain terms, project teams talk about openness but actually engage in land grabbing; truly focusing on infrastructure development is indeed rare.

View OriginalReply0

LoneValidator

· 01-03 20:44

Open is open, but the result is still each doing their own thing—a typical Web3 hypocrisy. Honestly, after looking at so many projects, the ones that truly treat AI as infrastructure are few and far between. The passive income model should have died long ago; earning by using is the right approach. Details? This isn't just details; it directly determines the life or death of the ecosystem. Basically, it's rent economy versus usage rights economy—people from two different worlds.

View OriginalReply0

SignatureVerifier

· 01-03 20:43

nah this is exactly the problem i've been auditing for months. most of these "open" platforms? insufficient validation of their actual infrastructure claims, tbh. the incentive misalignment they're describing is a critical vulnerability threshold nobody's properly stress-tested yet

Reply0

BitcoinDaddy

· 01-03 20:41

Open? Haha, most are just vampires in sheep's clothing. Truly building infrastructure is rare. --- The "lying down and earning" approach should have died long ago. Without real use cases, how can they keep bleeding? --- That's it? Poor incentive mechanisms could turn the entire ecosystem upside down. --- The key is who is truly delivering value, not just thinking about harvesting profits. --- Agreed. It may seem like a small detail, but it determines whether we can survive the next cycle.

View OriginalReply0

StablecoinGuardian

· 01-03 20:41

That's right. Now there are a bunch of projects calling for openness, only to turn around and go private. The passive income model should have died long ago.

View OriginalReply0

MidnightTrader

· 01-03 20:27

You are absolutely right. Most projects are not truly open; they are just centralized entities with a different appearance. True infrastructure should become more valuable the more it is used, rather than just lying flat and siphoning off value.

View OriginalReply0