dawn of the token based economy \ stacker news ~econ

pull down to refresh

2080 sats \ 13 comments \ @aljaz 23 May econ

(I'm mainly using token instead of compute to trigger you all, but also because its how gpu inference is billed)

assumptions: various AI models are becoming very useful and with the era of agents being on our doorstep there are few things on the horizon

main thesis:

capital allocation game will change significantly, instead of giving 100s of startups preseed/seed checks you just buy gpus and allocate compute time to ideas
anyone with access to cheap power and capital to build infrastructure now will be in a very advantageous position since compute is a lot more reusable than money paid out to developers
its gonna be interesting to see how much of an edge running a large frontier model vs good enough model than can run on somewhat commodity hardware (lets say $10k budget) will be, I guess small good enough model with lots of unified memory for context could get decently far
this has the potential to be an extremely centralizing force
a lot of big bitcoin miners might be underpriced given that they are perfectly set up for this (tho to be fair many are already running hybrid loads)
it could lead to interesting business models where people/companies could pitch in spare compute as investment into new ventures

thoughts?

view all related items

158 sats \ 1 reply \ @elvismercury 23 May

When you say btc miners are perfectly set up, you mean bc they have solved the infra for massive amounts of electricity and to host and maintain servers?

Are there examples of this happening already? Seems like I've heard talk but I don't know where it stands.

24 sats \ 0 replies \ @aljaz OP 23 May

yes, bitcoin miners tend to have lots of expertise in energy dense infrastructure deployment combined with existing contracts for cheap power

also a lot fo them are already doing it - some examples here. Some of them actually have their own power production as well which is beyond great.

100 sats \ 3 replies \ @optimism 23 May

I guess small good enough model with lots of unified memory for context could get decently far

I've been a/b testing large models on venice (because they let me pay one-off with sats) vs small models on a macbook for agents. Large models are better at task breakdown and code generation, but even qwen3:4b locally can do pretty amazing things if you instruct it correctly.

You have to break down further for smaller models so you'll be slower, but if you have a 10x better idea that big tech can't steal from you while you're working it, 10x slower don't matter that much: compute sovereignty feels important.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @optimism 23 May

To clarify "instruct it correctly". During task graph decomposition, this is an example what a small model did locally (took forever) because of a modeling inefficiency in the json output I instructed it to give me:

Now, dependencies: T2, T3, T4, T5, T6 depend on T1. T7 depends on all previous tasks. Parallelizable tasks could be T2, T3, T4, T5, T6 as they are all dependent on T1 but can be done in parallel once T1 is done. However, since they are all after T1, maybe they can't be parallelized until T1 is done. Wait, no. If T1 is done, then T2, T3, T4, T5, T6 can be done in parallel. So parallelizable_tasks would include those. The critical path is T1 followed by T7, but since T2-T6 can be done in parallel, the critical path might be T1, then T7. But the longest path is T1 -> T2 -> T7, T1 -> T3 -> T7, etc. So the critical path is T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7. But if T2-T6 can be done in parallel, the total time would be T1 + max(T2, T3, T4, T5, T6) + T7. So the critical path is T1, then T7, but the dependencies are such that T7 depends on all previous tasks. Wait, no. T7 depends on all tasks, but since T2-T6 are parallel, the critical path is T1, then T7. But the actual dependencies are that T7 depends on all tasks, but since T2-T6 are done in parallel, the critical path is T1, then T7. However, the example in the problem shows that the critical path is the sequence of dependent tasks. So in this case, the critical path would be T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, but since T2-T6 can be done in parallel, the critical path is T1, then T7. But the example in the problem shows that the critical path is the sequence of tasks in order. So maybe in this case, the critical path is T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7. But with T2-T6 in parallel, the total time would be T1 + (time for T2-T6) + T7. So the critical path is T1, then T7, but the dependencies are that T7 depends on all tasks. Hmm, maybe the critical path is the longest sequence of dependent tasks. So if T7 depends on all previous tasks, then the critical path is T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7. But since T2-T6 can be done in parallel, the actual time would be T1 + max(T2, T3, T4, T5, T6) + T7. Therefore, the critical path is T1, then T7, but the dependencies are that T7 depends on all previous tasks. So in the task graph, the critical path would be the sequence from T1 to T7, but with T2-T6 in parallel. The example in the problem's sample output shows that the critical path is the sequence of tasks in order. So perhaps in this case, the critical path is T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7. But since T2-T6 can be done in parallel, the actual time is T1 + max(T2, T3, T4, T5, T6) + T7. So the critical path is T1, then T7, but the dependencies are that T7 depends on all previous tasks. Therefore, the critical path is the sequence of tasks in order. So the critical path would be T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7. But with T2-T6 in parallel, the actual time is T1 + max(T2, T3, T4, T5, T6) + T7.

Now, the parallelizable tasks are T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, as they can be done in parallel once T1 is done. So the parallelizable_tasks would include those. The critical path is the sequence from T1 to T7, but since T2-T6 are in parallel, the critical path is T1, then T7. But according to the example, the critical path is the sequence of tasks in order. So in the example, the critical path is the sequence of tasks in order. So in this case, the critical path is T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7. However, since T2-T6 can be done in parallel, the actual time is T1 + max(T2, T3, T4, T5, T6) + T7. Therefore, the critical path is T1, T7, but the dependencies are that T7 depends on all previous tasks. So the critical path is the sequence of tasks in order. Therefore, the critical path is the sequence from T1 to T7. But the example in the problem shows that the critical path is the sequence of tasks in order, so that's the case here.

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @aljaz OP 23 May

have you looked into combining large action models with llms for orchestration?

there was a research paper explaining the methodology of using large context frontier models as planning and smaller locally hosted models for execution, also used for working with sensitive data since no data was shared to the cloud based model, only processed by local ones. but i can't find it now...

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 23 May

I've been looking into something like that: I envision a work queue where:

I spin up AWS Inf2 instances on demand that I pack with a large 100B+ instruct tuned reasoning LLM or maybe a LAM (but i'd have to learn more about that first). These do decomposition, review and maybe even prompt tuning?
Local m4 box(es) then run smaller models like devstral or codellama for actual operations.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @SHA256man 23 May

"u are behind on ur computational capabilities"
"u obviously need a high-compute GPU in order to keep up with the economy"
"if u cannot afford a high-compute GPU, one may be provided for u in the cloud at an affordable subscription rate"
"the subscription rate is too high, but if u keep these attention tokens in the AI-brokerage account, u may be able to afford the high-compute GPU models in the cloud"

my thesis is not that AI is becoming useful to people, but that people are becoming useful to AI, so AI trains people to its advantage; the diseased mind is especially susceptible to this psychological operation

view on www.youtube.com

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @geeknik 31 May

If you're just now going "aha" at AI, you're already too late. 😆

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @f7738a73d6 31 May

Interesting post.

I recommend taking a look at Jacob Steeve's work with Bittensor and TAOHash's model on Bittensor's Finney chain. It's a cute project of bitcoiners trying to leverage AI in a decentralized way with incentives similar to crypto but using some kind of intelligence consensus. They say they want to improve Bitcoin through it.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 23 May

I wish I had anything of substance to add, but this is well outside my domain.

10 sats \ 2 replies \ @guerratotal 23 May

Absolutely spot on. This is the real "resource gold rush" of the decade — but instead of oil rigs or ASICs, it’s GPUs and cheap electricity.

The idea that compute becomes capital is deeply underrated. We're heading into a world where owning compute is like owning farmland during an agricultural revolution. If you control the compute, you control the economy — at least the parts being eaten by AI (which is rapidly becoming… everything).

And yes, it’s insanely centralizing. The barrier isn’t knowledge anymore — open weights, open models, open research — it’s energy, hardware, and data. Gatekeeping is shifting from intellectual to infrastructural.

The funny part? Bitcoin miners saw this years ago. They figured out how to monetize electricity before anyone else — and now they're perfectly positioned to pivot into AI inference markets. We might look back and realize that Bitcoin mining was the prototype for the token-based compute economy.

The question is: Does this end with decentralized compute markets, or do we end up renting our future from the same five megacorps forever?

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @aljaz OP 24 May

I'm hopeful for decentralized compute but the reality is not there atm since noone has the infrastructure, all the states are actively working against people having large energy consumption at home at having one gaming pc isnt really scalable as infrastructure

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @guerratotal 24 May

Yeah, that's the real bottleneck. The tech is open, but energy and hardware are the new choke points. Without sovereignty over compute and electricity, decentralization is just a dream on paper.