Not quite. Ultimately the lions-share of income of model producer's is coming from firms.

Firms are only going to pay out to model producers if they are getting more in excess of the cost of financing projects over time. If a firm does not see this happen, they reduce their spend on tokens. Simple.

Its a whole lot more nuanced than some shitty game theory.

“Firms are only making perfectly rational decisions that result in meaningful real outcomes” - not my experience.

Firms waste literally billions on some bullshit that gets them nothing.

lol yeeh... its obvious as hell.

And frankly the best signal now is: the shorter it is the greater the likelihood it was at least expensive for the human to produce. Said in another way - a shorter thing is easier to make sense of completely and if its garbage - its garbage. At least the cost borne on you was minimised!

If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter. From funny quote to litmus test.

And? What a stupid post.

These race car drivers are lauded for steering a particular kind of car amongst their competitors.

The human is what people care about - the car whilst being spectacular is literally just a vehicle.

I swear many here don't understand human's at all.

Private market dynamics are not the same buddy.

Everyone owns them at this point and Google is outright public.

No youre missing the point of the poster - disclosures in private markets are different than public, especially in the context of large commitments - the company has no choice.

The implications are very different if everyone owns them even if they aren’t public. They may have no choice whether to share, but the owners which have the privilege to know (not everyone because earlier owners aren’t stupid) don’t act the same, right?

And let’s be honest - rules get bent all the time, especially when valuations are 9 figures. Stakeholders at this point won’t risk killing a golden goose.