100% this is to kickstart the network effects of their stablecoin stuff.
I think everyone working on bitcoin for machines is way too early and copping out of making bitcoin usable for people in the rare circumstances where bitcoin makes more sense than KYC fated stablecoins. imho Bitcoin will lag stablecoins machine-to-machine unless we imagine that there will be a large illicit machine economy.
working on bitcoin for machines is way too early and copping out of making bitcoin usable for people
It's cold-hearted analysis over hopium, recognizing the layering of the foundation on up. A clear dispassionate picture is necessary to identify where Bitcoin is actually better.
If Bitcoin is not usable by machines, it's not usable for people. It's also not exclusive since it's still ultimately people that own/operate the machines.
Stables will always be more "usable" since their UX and scale can lean on trust and centralization. The cop-outs in Bitcoin are re-framing trust and centralization as innovation, such as we see with fake Layer 2s, ultimately to compete with stables in areas where Bitcoin has no inherent advantage.
The other headwind vs. stables is the fact that peoples bills/debts are denominated in dollars, which even gives stables a cost advantage because there's no bid/ask spreads, volatility factoring, etc with exchanges.
This is outside of Lightning's purview, and why Bitcoin being the world reserve currency is all that matters in the end, Lightning only helps people for whom Bitcoin is already their reserve currency.
Lightning is stagnant as a result of working on the wrong things. "Bitcoin for buying coffee" has cost us most of the last 10 years.
unless we imagine that there will be a large illicit machine economy
Lightning is fast, stables are just as fast. Can't win on speed, without some asterisks.
Lightning is cheap, stables are cheaper. Can't win on cost, without some asterisks.
The asterisks are KYC and finality. That doesn't mean illicit, simply that they are their own costs/frictions not equally realized by everyone.
from a laymen’s perspective I’d agree with gbis. I don’t see any reason apart from illicit activities that Bitcoin/ln payments has to be the default agent to agent or human to agent payments. agents will use whatever payment rails the user tells them to use and likely be the lowest UX barrier
I think the UX barrier is why machines-first matters, because interfaces are converging on a chat bot. The UX for Lightning and Stables can only be equivalent if its abstracted behind a slop cannon.
There was post last week about AI vs. Bitcoin, that notion misses the forest for the trees, the forest is AI is good for Bitcoin.
KYC as a friction/cost benefits illicit more than most, but not exclusively. The open-network vs. closed network is the most material thing beyond Bitcoin as the reserve currency, a given Stable has to become ubiquitous to compete on "money for the internet". The real cope is L402 for stables.
Stables are good for Bitcoin too. Stables aren't a savings vehicle, they reduce friction INTO the reserve currency.
The startup also claimed to have 8 million global users and to provide access to more than 400 models.
I wish them the best but I would be concern that OpenRouter is at the mercy of the different AI companies. (They don't control access and in theory could be cut out).
I think that's why this deal makes sense for Stripe
At the end of the day, it's a marketplace. The moat is volume/distribution, providers need to go to them to increase distribution. But their margins are tight, if they add too much margin it creates room for a second player. Since the margin is tight down to the payment processing, vertical integration with a payments processor prevents anyone from under-cutting them. With stripe getting into stablecoins that even cuts out the payment networks, so there's no juice left for competitors to squeeze.
This is manifest of my thesis re: Lightning, but the intermediate stablecoin step.
Lightning/stablecoin payments must first track with granular, machine-to-machine payments, in competitive low-margin businesses: #1419562
The problem with stablecoins is the upper bound on the stablecoins respective network effects, potentially KYC gates, reserve value etc. A Lightning competitor could make inroads against OpenRouter eventually but this acquisition makes that more distant and a much higher bar to clear.
I don't get it... doesn't seem like they have much of a moat.
Then again I thought 1B for instagram was crazy back in the day lol
100% this is to kickstart the network effects of their stablecoin stuff.
I think everyone working on bitcoin for machines is way too early and copping out of making bitcoin usable for people in the rare circumstances where bitcoin makes more sense than KYC fated stablecoins. imho Bitcoin will lag stablecoins machine-to-machine unless we imagine that there will be a large illicit machine economy.
It's cold-hearted analysis over hopium, recognizing the layering of the foundation on up. A clear dispassionate picture is necessary to identify where Bitcoin is actually better.
If Bitcoin is not usable by machines, it's not usable for people. It's also not exclusive since it's still ultimately people that own/operate the machines.
Stables will always be more "usable" since their UX and scale can lean on trust and centralization. The cop-outs in Bitcoin are re-framing trust and centralization as innovation, such as we see with fake Layer 2s, ultimately to compete with stables in areas where Bitcoin has no inherent advantage.
The other headwind vs. stables is the fact that peoples bills/debts are denominated in dollars, which even gives stables a cost advantage because there's no bid/ask spreads, volatility factoring, etc with exchanges.
This is outside of Lightning's purview, and why Bitcoin being the world reserve currency is all that matters in the end, Lightning only helps people for whom Bitcoin is already their reserve currency.
Lightning is stagnant as a result of working on the wrong things. "Bitcoin for buying coffee" has cost us most of the last 10 years.
Lightning is fast, stables are just as fast. Can't win on speed, without some asterisks.
Lightning is cheap, stables are cheaper. Can't win on cost, without some asterisks.
The asterisks are KYC and finality. That doesn't mean illicit, simply that they are their own costs/frictions not equally realized by everyone.
from a laymen’s perspective I’d agree with gbis. I don’t see any reason apart from illicit activities that Bitcoin/ln payments has to be the default agent to agent or human to agent payments. agents will use whatever payment rails the user tells them to use and likely be the lowest UX barrier
I think the UX barrier is why machines-first matters, because interfaces are converging on a chat bot. The UX for Lightning and Stables can only be equivalent if its abstracted behind a slop cannon.
There was post last week about AI vs. Bitcoin, that notion misses the forest for the trees, the forest is AI is good for Bitcoin.
KYC as a friction/cost benefits illicit more than most, but not exclusively. The open-network vs. closed network is the most material thing beyond Bitcoin as the reserve currency, a given Stable has to become ubiquitous to compete on "money for the internet". The real cope is L402 for stables.
Stables are good for Bitcoin too. Stables aren't a savings vehicle, they reduce friction INTO the reserve currency.
Rule 1: Everything is good for Bitcoin.
I wish them the best but I would be concern that OpenRouter is at the mercy of the different AI companies. (They don't control access and in theory could be cut out).
I think that's why this deal makes sense for Stripe
At the end of the day, it's a marketplace. The moat is volume/distribution, providers need to go to them to increase distribution. But their margins are tight, if they add too much margin it creates room for a second player. Since the margin is tight down to the payment processing, vertical integration with a payments processor prevents anyone from under-cutting them. With stripe getting into stablecoins that even cuts out the payment networks, so there's no juice left for competitors to squeeze.
This is manifest of my thesis re: Lightning, but the intermediate stablecoin step.
Lightning/stablecoin payments must first track with granular, machine-to-machine payments, in competitive low-margin businesses: #1419562
The problem with stablecoins is the upper bound on the stablecoins respective network effects, potentially KYC gates, reserve value etc. A Lightning competitor could make inroads against OpenRouter eventually but this acquisition makes that more distant and a much higher bar to clear.