{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreihfnpliq4fc2kicc3256hnxbwug7pok2narcwgmcej2yqgetmvo34",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:lk3jfj3zq4k4wxnk474axylu/app.bsky.feed.post/3mn7axtuogov2"
  },
  "path": "/t/openai-needs-a-compute-token-economy-before-anthropic-builds-one-a-strategic-proposal/1382180#post_2",
  "publishedAt": "2026-06-01T04:25:32.000Z",
  "site": "https://community.openai.com",
  "textContent": "Thanks for your “its not about — it’s about” essay.\n\nHowever, it is quite the opposite of what any subscription business with consumption costs would do.\n\n  * There are high-cost subscribers to a service, and they can buy more beyond their usage limits with _credits_ (which also expire, a profitable breakage), or are billed for overages;\n  * There are low-cost subscribers - your bread-and-butter, who use less than they consume.\n\n\n\nYou propose:\n\n  * What if the value that low-cost subscribers seem to be not maximally employing was given to high-cost subscribers to reduce their need to pay more?\n\n\n\nThus, your argument for your scheme for internal exchange of value, addressed to an imagined company representive (where, currently, even explicitly-purchased API credits are non-transferrable by policy), which results in the manufacture of free credits for top users, seems to have shortcomings in its prompt input. It doesn’t seem likely to appeal as a point leading to profitability and return in an IPO prospectus.\n\nYou even included the AI’s suggested category in your paste, “API”, while talking about _subscriptions_ in the body.\n\nWhat would actually be good IPO business (which companies _do_):\n\n  * increase profitability by booting the top 0.1% over-consumers off the service every month via opaque appeal-less means, such as inscrutable content policy violations.\n\n",
  "title": "OpenAI Needs a Compute Token Economy Before Anthropic Builds One — A Strategic Proposal"
}