Home Blog Page 411

Tokenmaxxing is over. It was a flawed way to measure a company’s ROI from AI.

0
Tokenmaxxing is over. It was a flawed way to measure a company's ROI from AI.

Hello and welcome to Eye on AI. It’s Jeremy here, filling in for Sharon who is on vacation. In this edition…CNN sues Perplexity…IBM and RedHat form $5 billion bug patching project…Snowflake signs a $6 billion deal with AWS…and the White House gives U.S. intelligence agencies $9 billion to build their own AI chip cluster.

Just a few weeks ago, it seemed that ‘tokenmaxxing’ was all the rage inside many companies. The idea was: if you wanted to find out which employees were being most innovative in deploying AI agents, you should track their token usage. (Tokens are the units of data that AI models process; a token is equivalent to about a word-and-a-half of English language text.) The more tokens expended, the more productive that employee’s AI agents were, or at least, the more AI-forward and innovative that employee was trying to be. That was the idea anyway. Meta, Amazon, OpenAI, and many other companies even established formal or informal leaderboards of token usage and encouraged engineers and developers to compete to see who could use the most tokens in a given period of time.

Of course, Goodhart’s Law still holds (it posits that any measure that becomes a target, ceases to be a good measure) and tokenmaxxing had some predictably perverse results. At Amazon, the Financial Times reported, some employees spun up AI agents to complete wholly meaningless or unnecessary tasks just to keep up their token usage stats, which were now being used by managers to assess employee performance.

Also, all those tokens are hardly free, and some companies have gotten sticker shock from their Anthropic and OpenAI bills. So, now many companies seem to be pulling back from the tokenmaxxing ethos and even limiting which employees can use third party AI agents, at least those that use the most advanced AI models as the “brains” inside the agentic harnesses. Meta took down the informal tokemaxxing leaderboard its employees had created. Microsoft has cancelled Claude Code subscriptions for employees in several key product divisions, according to reporting from The Verge. Uber said it had burned through its entire 2026 “token budget” in just the first four months of the year, in part due to high usage of Claude Code. Meanwhile, Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff has said his company’s Anthropic bill will be about $300 million this year and that he wished there were a “smart router” that could determine which queries actually required the most capable, and most expensive, models and which could be handled by smaller, less-capable-but-capable enough, cheaper alternatives.

Many executives are also saying token spending isn’t translating into firm-wide return on investment. Uber Chief Operating Officer Andrew Macdonald told a podcast last week that the ride-hailing firm has been struggling to connect the boost in the productivity of some workers with any company-wide impact. “If you‘re not actually able to draw a direct line to how much useful features and functionality you’re shipping to your users,” he said. “[The token costs are] harder to justify.” The net result is that the days of tokenmaxxing are over.

Why AI spend is still not producing ROI

But that still leaves the broader question of why this disconnect exists between AI spend and ROI? Certainly explicitly rewarding tokenmaxxing doesn’t help, since it fails to align employee incentives with company goals (see that Amazon example). Azeem Azahar, the author of the Exponential View newsletter, who is as good a thinker on the economic and business impact of AI as anyone, argues that the current AI productivity paradox may simply be the expected “productivity J-curve” one would expect with any new, general purpose technology.

Unlike with a technology designed to make a particular process better, which can often have immediate positive productivity impacts, it often takes considerable time for people to figure out how best to deploy a general purpose technology. During this “figuring it out” period, productivity can actually fall rather than increase. This is because companies need to spend time and money experimenting with how to use the new technology, often without seeing a positive bottom line impact. Only later, once people figure out the optimal ways to redesign business processes around the new tech, does productivity experience a sudden acceleration.

The classic example of this that Azhar goes into some depth on is the invention of electricity and its impact on manufacturing. The first thing factories did with electricity was to replace gas lighting with electric lighting. That was a cost savings, but didn’t really change much in terms of the firm’s output. (And there was some cost in installing the lights and wiring the factory, which even muted those savings.) The physics of steam meant that pre-electric factories were built with a central engine that powered many, or even all, of the factory’s equipment off a single drive shaft. So, the second thing factories did was replace the large central steam engine with large electric motors, which they still used to run clusters of machines off central drive shafts. This was cheaper than trying to reconfigure the whole factory. But it turned out to not be very efficient or operationally cost-effective. Productivity gains in one part of the production floor often simply caused bottlenecks elsewhere on the assembly line, and overall the factory saw little gain. It was only when companies began electrifying individual machines and reorganizing the entire layout of factories, that firms saw big productivity boosts.

Very few firms are getting to Stage 3

Azhar predicts that the same thing will happen with AI, but that most firms are sort of stuck in stage one or stage two of this evolution. I think he’s probably right. Tokenmaxxing is easy. Redesigning workflows is hard. Harder still—and something which Azhar doesn’t talk about—is rethinking entire business lines, i.e. what products or services the firm sells, and even business models. This gets at the fundamental purpose of the company. This is where the really big value from AI is. It’s about reinvention, not redesign. But most companies are still not thinking big enough.

Because most existing businesses are being too small minded about how they use AI, AI-native firms have a great opportunity right now. They will be able to move faster and to steal significant market share from incumbents before the legacy companies can effectively respond. It’s much easier to invent a new business from the ground up than it is to try to gut-renovate an existing one. (This is also why it may be more difficult than many private equity firms hope to simply add a dash of AI to their portfolio investments and hope to flip the businesses at higher valuations.) 

Ok, with that, here’s more AI news.

Jeremy Kahn
jeremy.kahn@fortune.com
@jeremyakahn

FORTUNE ON AI

Exclusive: Geordie AI raises $30 million Series A to be ‘air traffic control’ for your company’s AI agents—by Jeremy Kahn

Exclusive: Orbital Industries, startup using AI to discover exotic new materials, raises $50 million Series B funding round—by Jeremy Kahn

Boos, AI-washing, and ‘low-value human capital’: The psychological traps CEOs are falling into when they botch their AI messaging—by Claire Zillman

America’s new AI map shows something surprising: ‘A lot of normal people are adopting AI’—by Nick Lichtenberg

AI IN THE NEWS

CNN sues Perplexity for copyright infringement. The news network has sued the AI company, alleging Perplexity’s AI “answer engine” scraped more than 17,000 CNN stories, photos, videos, and other content to provide data for its AI-generated outputs. The suit contends that after negotiations over a licensing deal broke down in 2025, Perplexity continued to appropriate CNN content and falsely implied a commercial relationship with the network that does not exist. CNN is seeking unspecified monetary damages and an injunction blocking further infringement, while Perplexity has pushed back with a terse response from its spokesperson: “You can’t copyright facts.” This is the first time CNN has sued an AI company. Read more from CNN here.

Report: Trump appoints former AG Bondi to White House AI panel. President Trump has appointed former Attorney General Pam Bondi to the Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), a White House advisory panel that is influential on AI policy, Axios reports, citing unnamed sources familiar with the decision. The panel is chaired by former AI czar David Sacks as well as current White House science adviser Michael Kratsios, and also includes tech heavyweights such as Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and Oracle CEO Larry Ellison. Bondi, who was ousted as AG last month, will be tasked with facilitating coordination between the government and the tech executives on the panel, and will also take on a newly created advisory role focused on national infrastructure. The appointment comes as Bondi is recovering from thyroid cancer, which she was diagnosed with shortly after departing the Justice Department, Axios said, again citing unnamed sources.

IBM and Red Hat announce $5 billion project to patch open source code. The initiative, which IBM is calling Project Lightwell, comes as advanced AI models, such as Anthropic’s Mythos, discover more and more critical vulnerabilities in code bases. The project will see IBM and Red Hat deploy 20,000 AI-assisted engineers to create a trusted enterprise clearinghouse designed to identify, test, and patch security vulnerabilities in open-source software which is heavily-used by the majority of large corporations for many critical functions. Enterprises will access the service through commercial subscriptions, receiving validated, production-ready patches they can plug directly into their software supply chains. A cohort of major financial institutions—including Bank of America, Citi, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Visa, and Wells Fargo—are already participating as early adopters. You can read more from the Wall Street Journal here.

Snowflake inks $6 billion deal to use AWS chips. The Wall Street Journal reports that data management giant Snowflake has signed a $6 billion, five-year deal to use Amazon Web Services’ Graviton CPU chips, making Snowflake one of AWS’s largest CPU-based computing customers alongside Meta and Apple. The deal reflects a broader surge in demand for CPUs driven by the rise of AI agents, which require large numbers of the processors to orchestrate and sequence their computing tasks. CPU makers including Intel, AMD, and Arm Holdings have all seen rising sales and share prices in recent months as agentic AI has gone mainstream.

Robinhood rolls out agentic AI trading features. Robinhood has unveiled two new products—Agentic Trading and an Agentic Credit Card—that allow customers to connect third-party AI assistants, such as Anthropic’s Claude or the coding agent Cursor, to carry out investing strategies or spending tasks with minimal human involvement. For trading, customers can establish a dedicated agentic account entirely separate from their main portfolio, directing the AI to build a diversified portfolio from scratch or rebalance holdings as opportunities arise. For spending, agents can be given access to a virtual Robinhood Gold credit card to make automatic purchases such as snagging concert tickets or buying products when prices drop below a set threshold. Safety guardrails include isolated accounts with limited funds, spending caps, real-time activity feeds, and a one-tap kill switch—though Robinhood cautions that AI agents can err or behave unexpectedly, and that users bear responsibility for monitoring their accounts. Read more here from CNBC.

EYE ON AI NUMBERS

$9 billion

That’s the amount of money the White House is giving U.S. intelligence agencies to help them establish their own computing clusters of sophisticated Grace Blackwell superchips from Nvidia. The chips are needed so that U.S. intelligence agencies can run their own copies of frontier AI models, such as OpenAI’s GPT-5.5, and possibly Anthropic’s Mythos, as well as future AI models, on their own classified networks. These state-of-the-art models require a large number of specialized AI chips to run or to fine-tune. The Pentagon has recently signed deals with OpenAI, Google, and xAI that allow their AI models to be used in classified networks. The National Security Agency is also believed to be using many of these models as well as those from Anthropic, which the Trump administration has sought to bar from being used by government agencies after the company refused to accede to the Pentagon’s insistence that it allow its models to be used for “any lawful purpose.” The NSA is reportedly still working on some kind of arrangement that will enable it to continue to use Anthropic’s model. Although the full terms of all the contracts are not public, it is believed that in some cases the companies are providing versions of these models to the government that contain fewer guardrails than the version they release to the general public. Read more from the New York Times here

AI CALENDAR

June 8-10: Fortune Brainstorm Tech, Aspen, Colo. Apply to attend here.

June 17-20: VivaTech, Paris.

July 6-11: International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), Seoul, South Korea.

July 7-10: AI for Good Summit, Geneva, Switzerland.

Aug. 4-6: Ai4 2026, Las Vegas.



Source link

Solana: Why Pump.fun’s 4.2M SOL move could threaten KEY support

0
Solana: Why Pump.fun’s 4.2M SOL move could threaten KEY support


Pump.fun intensified sell‑side pressure by depositing over 4.2 million Solana [SOL], worth approximately $738.6 million, into Kraken. This wallet activity marked one of the largest sustained distribution phases across Solana’s ecosystem in recent times.

These transfers included several deposits exceeding $1 million each, while cumulative exchange-linked selling activity approached $780 million. The latest transaction alone involved another 100,628 SOL worth roughly $8.32 million moving toward Kraken-linked wallets. 

This structure showed consistent distribution rather than isolated profit-taking activity. In addition, repeated exchange deposits continued appearing throughout May as Solana struggled to maintain stronger recovery strength. 

If this distribution pace continues expanding, buyers would likely face heavier absorption pressure across key resistance zones.

Negative netflows continue dominating SOL

At press time, the Spot Netflows remained negative at -$13.28 million despite the recent increase in exchange-linked distribution activity across the market. The continued outflow structure suggested many holders still preferred moving SOL away from centralized exchanges instead of preparing for immediate selling. 

However, Pump.fun’s massive Kraken deposits introduced conflicting pressure across the broader market structure. This divergence reflected two competing forces developing simultaneously within Solana’s ecosystem. 

Large-scale entity selling activity continued accelerating, while broader holders maintained accumulation-like exchange behavior through persistent outflows. In addition, the negative netflow reading arrived during ongoing price weakness near the lower end of SOL’s trading range. 

This condition suggested buyers still attempted absorbing supply despite the expanding distribution pressure.

Source: CoinGlass

SOL weakens near range support

Solana continued consolidating between the critical $78.50 support and the $97.72 resistance zone after repeated rejection attempts near the upper boundary. 

Moreover, the price action weakened toward $80.83 during the latest session as sellers regained short-term control inside the broader structure. Earlier recovery attempts pushed SOL close to the $97 region; however, buyers failed to sustain strength above resistance. 

At the time of writing, the Relative Strength Index also declined toward 36.35 while dropping below its moving average near 44.09, showing weakening buyer strength throughout the ongoing consolidation phase. 

Since then, RSI continued trending downward as price drifted closer toward lower support. This structure reflected fading bullish participation instead of aggressive accumulation near support levels.

If SOL loses the $78.50 floor, downside pressure would likely intensify toward lower liquidity zones.

SOL price actionSOL price action
Source: TradingView

Long liquidations absorb market volatility

Long liquidations surged above $17.55 million, while short liquidations remained below $250,000 across the latest volatility cycle. The imbalance showed bullish traders absorbed most of the recent market pressure as price weakened toward lower support levels. 

Binance recorded over $8.34 million in long liquidations alone, while Bybit contributed another $3.86 million, according to Coinglass data. Notably, Hyperliquid also registered nearly $1.78 million in liquidated long positions during the same period. 

However, short liquidations stayed extremely limited across major exchanges, reflecting weaker bearish exposure throughout the correction phase. 

Source: CoinGlass

Conclusively, Solana continued facing growing sell-side pressure as Pump.fun expanded Kraken deposits toward nearly $780 million in cumulative SOL sales. 

Despite the aggressive distribution activity, persistent negative Spot Netflows reflected overall market holding behavior. 

As a result, if buyers fail to defend the $78.50 support zone, bearish pressure will most likely intensify across the broader market structure.


Final Summary

  • Pump.fun continued accelerating exchange deposits while SOL weakened near lower range support.
  • Long traders absorbed most volatility as liquidations surged above $17.5 million across exchanges.



Source link

Hyperliquid’s pre-IPO SpaceX contracts suffers 45% flash crash, liquidating $1.5 million

0
Hyperliquid's pre-IPO SpaceX contracts suffers 45% flash crash, liquidating $1.5 million

Hyperliquid’s SPACEX-USDH perpetual contract suffered a violent flash crash on Thursday afternoon, plunging from an open of $2,277 to a low of $1,254, a near-45% collapse, within a single 30-minute window before partially recovering to around $2,169. The move liquidated 405 users across 1,393 positions, wiping $1.51 million in notional value, Hyperliquid data shows.

What makes the episode particularly striking is the volume concentration. Over the past 24 hours the contract had drifted quietly, generating just $4.87 million in total trading volume across an open interest base of under $2.9 million. Then one candle absorbed what was likely the bulk of that entire figure and the market had no depth or liquidity to absorb it.

The median liquidated position held just $31 in margin, pointing to a retail-heavy user base taking on 3x leverage with minimal cushion.

The Hyperliquid SPACEX-USDH is a crypto perpetual contract for SpaceX’s market valuation. As the company is private, people cannot buy its stock ahead of its anticipated IPO. To get around this, Hyperliquid created a synthetic perpetual contract that allows investors to bet on what they think the company will be worth.

Traders aren’t buying actual shares of Elon Musk’s rocket company, nor do they get any ownership or shareholder rights.

Unlike perpetual futures on Bitcoin or Ethereum, which anchor to deep, liquid spot markets, the SPACEX contract has no public price benchmark, with SpaceX shares trading only through private secondary markets gated to accredited investors.

At settlement, the mark price of $2,132 still sat more than $220 above the oracle price of $1,908, implying the contract remained at a premium even after the carnage.

SpaceX is targeting an IPO in June.

UPDATE (May 28, 2026, 17:31 UTC): Adds additional context.



Source link

Venice Token breaks below $15: Are VVV sellers taking full control?

0
Venice Token breaks below $15: Are VVV sellers taking full control?


Venice Token [VVV] came under heavy pressure after falling more than 10% over the past 24 hours. The sharp decline pushed VVV below the $15 imbalance zone, weakening the token’s short-term structure.

At the same time, retail activity and smaller whale participation increased. However, larger whales remained mostly inactive.

Why did VVV lose momentum so quickly?

The latest decline was aggressive rather than gradual. VVV lost the $15 zone rapidly after sellers regained control.

Breakdowns below imbalance zones often signal growing bearish pressure, especially when the price fails to stabilize immediately afterward.

Venice Token's price analysis
Source: TradingView

Now, below that level, the market no longer appeared balanced. Instead, sellers continued dictating short-term momentum. That move aligned with rising bearish momentum on the daily chart.

If buyers fail reclaiming the lost zone quickly, downside pressure could continue building.

Are VVV retail traders trying to buy the dip?

Retail activity increased noticeably as VVV dropped toward lower levels. Smaller whale wallets also became more active, suggesting some participants attempted absorbing the sell-off.

VVV Spot Average Order SizeVVV Spot Average Order Size
Source: CryptoQuant

Even so, larger whales still avoided making meaningful moves during the decline. That absence kept sentiment fragile.

Retail accumulation can temporarily slow downside pressure. However, stronger reversals usually require deeper liquidity from larger participants.

Without that support, buyers may struggle sustaining recovery attempts.

Activity rises as the market searches for direction

Trading activity increased as volatility expanded during the decline. Rising participation during sharp price drops often reflected a transition phase between buyers and sellers.

VVV Volume Bubble map's dataVVV Volume Bubble map's data
Source: CryptoQuant

VVV has yet to reclaim the lost $15 level, leaving bearish pressure intact across the short-term structure. If stronger demand emerges, VVV could stabilize and attempt forming a recovery base.

However, continued weak whale participation could leave room for sellers to extend the decline further.

For now, Venice Token [VVV] remained under pressure after losing a key support zone. Retail demand started building, but larger whales still stayed cautious. Until buyers reclaim $15 convincingly, sellers may continue controlling short-term momentum.


Final Summary

  • Venice Token dropped over 10% after losing the key $15 imbalance zone during heavy selling pressure.
  • VVV’s latest breakdown shifted momentum fast, leaving buyers with one key level to reclaim.



Source link

Ballerina Farm’s Daughter Is in Her New Electrolyte Ad

0
Ballerina Farm's Daughter Is in Her New Electrolyte Ad


It looks like the Ballerina Farm kids could soon be booked and busy.

In a first for the homesteading lifestyle brand owned by the husband-and-wife team Hannah and Daniel Neeleman, one of their nine children starred alone in a Ballerina Farm promo video posted on May 26.

If this becomes a regular thing, the Neelemans could be following in the footsteps of other influencer families where the kids have become known in their own right. Think Brooklyn Beckham or Kylie Jenner.

In the short, slick video, Frances Neeleman, 9, the couple’s eldest daughter, stares wistfully through a glass of water as an adult out of shot pours a scoop of pink powder into it. The video appears to be shot in the Neeleman family’s kitchen and, like many of her mom’s videos, is set to the soundtrack of Frances’ surroundings rather than music.

As a so-called “tradwife” influencer, Hannah’s hugely popular videos of her seemingly picture-perfect life with Daniel, the heir to JetBlue, and their nine kids on their Utah farm have been dividing opinions for years, sparking debate about gender roles and what’s real online.

The clip featuring Frances is part of a larger rebranding of Farmer Hydrate, Ballerina Farm’s electrolyte powder, which costs $30 for 25 servings and comes in raspberry lemon and berry flavors, as well as the new lemon basil lime, and grapefruit ginger.

Ballerina Farm has been upping its marketing game over the past few months, and slick production with a family focus appears to be the brief. In another clip posted May 27, Aubrey Benson Jones, the creative director of Ballerina Farm, said of the electrolyte rebrand, “We wanted something that feels fresh and modern and bright. But also has a little bit of that old town sensibility to it.”

In February, Hannah announced that she was pregnant in an ad for her brand’s protein powder, where she was pictured pregnant and admiring the craggy mountains that surround her home.

Who’s to say what this free-range marketing genius has in store for us next, but if the kids get their own Instagram accounts, I’ll be hitting follow.





Source link

ETFs Were Built to Make Investing Easier. They May Also Make Crashes Faster

0
ETFs Were Built to Make Investing Easier. They May Also Make Crashes Faster


Quick Read

  • S&P 500 ETFs now allocate roughly one-third of their assets to mega-cap technology stocks including Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), Nvidia (NVDA), Amazon (AMZN), Meta (META), and Alphabet (GOOG), creating dangerous market concentration where index fund outflows force simultaneous selling of the same stocks.

  • Leveraged single-stock ETFs account for roughly 8% of total U.S. exchange trading volume and must rebalance constantly, mechanically amplifying market volatility by buying after rallies and selling after declines, potentially accelerating downturns once panic begins.

  • The analyst who called NVIDIA in 2010 just named his top 10 AI stocks. Get them here FREE.

For years, exchange-traded funds were one of Wall Street’s great success stories. ETFs gave ordinary investors cheap diversification, instant market exposure, and lower fees than traditional mutual funds. Instead of picking individual stocks, investors could buy the whole market with a single click. It was investing simplified.

But the ETF market has grown into something far larger than many investors realize. According to World Bank data, the number of publicly traded U.S. companies has fallen to 3,908 from more than 8,000 in the late 1990s. At the same time, there are now roughly 4,900 ETFs trading in the U.S..

With 1,000 more ETFs than stocks, what happens when thousands of ETFs own the same shrinking pool of stocks — and investors suddenly rush to sell at the same time?

The analyst who called NVIDIA in 2010 just named his top 10 stocks. Get them here FREE.

Granted, ETFs themselves are not inherently dangerous. Broad index funds tracking the S&P 500 remain among the safest and lowest-cost tools available to long-term investors. But the structure surrounding ETFs has changed. Leveraged funds, inverse products, thematic ETFs, and options-based strategies now make up a much larger portion of daily trading volume than they did even five years ago.

In a downturn, that could matter.

The Market Is Becoming Increasingly Concentrated

The largest ETFs in the world are heavily concentrated in mega-cap technology companies. Funds tracking the S&P 500 now allocate roughly one-third of their assets to a small handful of stocks, including Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL), Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT), Nvidia (NASDAQ:NVDA), Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN), Meta Platforms (NASDAQ:META), and Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOG).

That concentration creates efficiency during bull markets. As money flows into index funds, the largest stocks receive the largest inflows. The cycle reinforces itself. But concentration also works in reverse.



Source link