Interesting. Prices, as they say, are set at the margins - so given that, what kind of liquidity is there? How many are transacting? If the price hasn't shifted from $16k, it could mean that everyone thinks they are worth $16k, OR it could mean that no one has bought one in years and the last transaction was $16k. Those are big differences.

No, people are still trading them for some reason, and there's pretty good liquidity. The highest offer right now is $15.2k, which someone can dump any of the 10k apes for that. And there were 16 sales (totaling $271K) in the last 24 hours.

yea, that’s my thing agains the whole “nft’s are worthless” thing, clearly there is a market for it. whether that’s a mechanism of or priced off of crypto trading or whatever i dont know, but it’s never been a thing in this market that they are “worthless,” they are still traded, and it’s been very stable

50% is a stretch. 20% maybe, depending on the vehicle.

But here is another consideration. Sales tax. If I buy a car and trade one in, the sale price that I pay taxes on is the price of the vehicle I am buying minus the trade in.

For instance, if I buy a new car for $30,000 and trade in a vehicle and they give me $15k for it, I pay sales tax only on $15k. That saves me about $1k in my area in sales tax. If I could have sold the used car for over $16k, then I would technically be money ahead. But your time is also worth something. For it to be worth it to me, I would need to be able to get at least $17k for the used vehicle to make it worth the effort.

I read a comment once that referred to this as the "sad spaceship" sound and I can't stop thinking about it. So on point. I hate it.

I would term it a Depreciating Asset, like a car or a building. Bitrot is real.

ok, so please don't take this wrong, but that last sentence was such a non-sequitur that I think I know what at least some of your problem is talking to other people.

EDIT: wait, I am going to go out on a limb and say that you meant "I was in a car crash of a conversation one time and my buddies pulled up on the scene and gave me a ride home."

Their meaning is very clear to me ("It's not good to be alone, for example one time I was in a lot of danger and a friend helped me").

I was literally in a car crash and friends (not in the crash) helped me get home is what I'm saying eg. good to not be alone/make friends

Thats funny because I thought it was shift-enter that creates a newline in a field where an enter submits. Just shows the fractured nature of this whole thing.

I've found Shift+Enter to do this pretty reliably across systems whatever they've chosen Enter / Ctrl+Enter to do.

It even works inside bullet points to add separate lines as part of the same bullet.

This is my thinking. Ctrl-Enter is usually "submit the form this input is a part of" in my experience, especially if you're in a multilinear text input (or textarea).

I've seen Enter, Shift-Enter, Ctrl-Enter, and Alt-Enter, (and on macOS, Cmd-Enter and Option-Enter), depending on the application. Total circus. I think this is actually a weakness of the standard keyboard: Keyboards should at the very least separate "submit form / enter" from "newline / carriage return" with different physical keys, but good luck changing that one, given the strong legacy of combining these functions.

While what you say is often true, it is a different problem and does not change the fact of the prior posters.

Well, it wouldn't be me, and it wouldn't be a lot of other people, so maybe it's not "just how it is", maybe some people are more willing to abuse the commons than others and we should be quicker to identify and condemn antisocial behavior instead of just shrugging and saying "Oh well, it's society's fault for failing to plug every possible profit motive for bad behavior"

It makes me wonder if this is B-roll footage for a news piece.

From the first graph, "The footage was captured by a CBS news team"

Indeed.

> The subscription services have assumptions baked in about the usage patterns; they're oversubscribed and subsidized.

Selling dollars for $.50 does that. It sounds like they have a business model issue to me.

This is how every cloud service and every internet provider works. If you want to get really edgy you could also say it's how modern banking works.

Without knowing the numbers it's hard to tell if the business model for these AI providers actually works, and I suspect it probably doesn't at the moment, but selling an oversubscribed product with baked in usage assumptions is a functional business model in a lot of spaces (for varying definitions of functional, I suppose). I'm surprised this is so surprising to people.

Don't forget gyms and other physical-space subscriptions. It's right up there with razor-and-blades for bog standard business models. Imagine if you got a gym membership and then were surprised when they cancelled your account for reselling gym access to your friends.

If they rely on this to be competitive, I have serious doubts they will survive much longer.

There are already many serious concerns about sharing code and information with 3rd parties, and those Chinese open models are dangerously close to destroying their entire value proposition.

The Business model is Uber. It doesn't work unless you corner the market and provide a distinct value replacement.

The problem is, there's not a clear every-man value like Uber has. The stories I see of people finding value are sparse and seem from the POV of either technosexuals or already strong developer whales leveraging the bootstrapy power .

If AI was seriously providing value, orgs like Microsoft wouldn't be pushing out versions of windows that can't restart.

It clearly is a niche product unlike Uber, but it's definitely being invested in like it is universal product.

> selling an oversubscribed product with baked in usage assumptions is a functional business model in a lot of spaces

Being a common business model and it being functional are two different things. I agree they are prevalent, but they are actively user hostile in nature. You are essentially saying that if people use your product at the advertised limit, then you will punish them. I get why the business does it, but it is an adversarial business model.

>Without knowing the numbers it's hard to tell if the business model for these AI providers actually works

It'll be interesting to see what OpenAI and Anthropic will tell us about this when they go public (seems likely late this year--along with SpaceX, possibly)

> Selling dollars for $.50 does that. It sounds like they have a business model issue to me.

its not. The idea is that majority subscribers don't hit limit, so they sell them dollar for 2. But there is minority which hit limit, and they effectively selling them dollar for 50c, but aggregated numbers could be positive.