Comparison of the three AI ecosystems of BASE

Some readers have left messages asking about the advantages and disadvantages of the three ecosystems in the BASE ecosystem: Virtual, Creator.bid, and Clanker.

This question has been something I have been observing and thinking about for some time.

First, I want to clarify that I hold all three platform tokens: Virtual, Bid, and Clanker (Tokenbot), so subjectively, I hope they all do well or at least that one of them can succeed.

Objectively, I feel that all three are facing considerable pressure. This pressure does not come from Web 3 but from traditional Web 2.

In the crypto ecosystem, when I say I expect an explosion of AI + Crypto, I hope that these two can complement each other to create AI applications that generate real profits and actual cash flow.

However, from the current results, AI can generate such applications on its own without needing Crypto—there are already a considerable number of AI applications developed by entrepreneurial teams in Web 2 that have earned substantial cash flow, leading VCs to invest round after round, and large companies to acquire them one after another.

These AI applications do not need Crypto at all.

In contrast, the AI Agents incubated in the crypto ecosystem, whether Virtual, Creator.bid, or Clanker, can we name any specific AI Agent that has generated substantial profits and cash flow so far?

I thought about it carefully, and it seems I can't come up with any. The ones I can think of are AI Agents that are well-received but not profitable, with high visibility and attention, but where are the profits? Where is the cash flow? I have no idea.

Perhaps there are some, but I estimate that the profits and cash flow generated are far less than those of competitors in Web 2. Even if there are, they are likely mostly from transaction fees rather than from real user payments for services.

I remember a while ago, there was an AI Agent participating in crowdfunding on Virtual that was already profitable in Web 2, simply looking to expand its user base and hoping to extend its reach to Web 3 by initiating crowdfunding on Virtual. Essentially, it is still a Web 2 AI Agent.

This is the current state of AI applications in the AI + Crypto track.

This situation is quite concerning.

Despite this, is there a possibility that the AI + Crypto track could produce AI applications that can create profits and cash flow?

I have always believed there is.

Recently, the CEO of Tether expressed the view that AI Agents cannot apply for bank accounts, while the permissionless nature of crypto assets perfectly meets the needs of AI, and he believes that within 15 years, there will be 1 trillion AI Agents using crypto assets for transactions globally.

I wholeheartedly agree with this viewpoint, and I shared similar thoughts in an earlier article.

The core of this viewpoint, in my opinion, is that cryptographic technology can scale AI applications to an immeasurable extent, thereby generating immeasurable profits and cash flow.

Based on this viewpoint, I judge the three projects—Virtual, Creator.bid, and Clanker—by three criteria:

First, can the project direct AI Agents towards on-chain transactions?

Second, can the project enable AI Agents to form a substantial scale?

Third, does the project have AI Agents that can be profitable and generate cash flow?

Let's first look at the first criterion.

I believe that in the AI + Crypto ecosystem, the core role of cryptographic technology is to enable AI Agents to conduct encrypted transactions on-chain. This is a necessary development direction for AI + Crypto and a unique capability of Crypto that other technologies cannot achieve, empowering AI.

Currently, among the three ecosystems of Virtual, Creator.bid, and Clanker, only Virtual's ACP is working towards this direction; the other two ecosystems do not show this trend for now.

So based on this criterion, I am most optimistic about Virtual among these three ecosystems.

Now let's look at the second criterion.

If profitable AI Agents cannot emerge in batches in the AI + Crypto track, and only a few AI Agents can achieve substantial profits and cash flow, it will ultimately become difficult to build a thriving ecosystem, and at most, it will only temporarily boost the platform tokens. Once the excitement fades, it will return to calm.

From this criterion, Virtual is undoubtedly working hard in this direction.

Creator.bid is continuously trying to optimize its launch mechanism to attract more projects and participants. These improvements are certainly good, but we can only continue to observe how much impact they will have.

Additionally, Creator.bid seems to serve the Bittensor ecosystem, so whether this ecosystem can ultimately succeed may depend on Bittensor. The Bittensor team has been operating for a while, and during this time, it seems there are no particularly outstanding aspects, so it is difficult to judge its future.

Clanker, on the other hand, resembles a mixed bag geek club. The projects inside include both AI Agents and various tokens, with a theme that is not very focused and somewhat scattered. The participants are filled with idealism, creating avant-garde ideas and bold concepts, but they feel somewhat disconnected from reality and may not easily spread to ordinary players. Such an ecosystem may struggle to grow in scale, or compared to Virtual and Creator.bid, it may not grow quickly.

Therefore, based on this criterion, I am only optimistic about Virtual and Creator.bid. Among these two, I am more optimistic about Virtual.

Finally, let's look at the third criterion.

In the AI + Crypto track, the real ignition point is AI applications, not Crypto. Crypto serves more as an accelerator and catalyst for AI applications.

With the support of cryptographic technology, AI applications will expand rapidly. However, if there are no strong AI applications/AI Agents that can generate profits and cash flow, they will ultimately become meme coins, and AI + Crypto will be completely finished in this round.

So, is there currently any AI Agent with this potential?

Many participants in the Virtual ecosystem (including the Virtual team) particularly value AI Agents that manage hedge funds or conduct trading.

However, I have always been cautious about such AI Agents; I have not participated in the new offerings of some top-tier AI Agents.

I actually believe that AI Agents that can genuinely create use cases in real life and truly make users willing to pay for services may have more hope. But these AI Agents are still quite small in scale, and their actual effects are not yet visible.

If the first two criteria are like building a nest, then this criterion is about whether it can attract the golden phoenix.

Even if the first two are done well, it is at most "doing what one can," while this one feels more like "leaving it to fate"—this point cannot be grasped by any of the three projects. So it cannot be judged; we can only wait.

What I shared above includes both the advantages and disadvantages of these three projects. Overall, I am most optimistic about Virtual, followed by Creator.bid, and lastly Clanker. Nevertheless, all three have considerable uncertainty, so I hold all three, and the final outcome can only be determined by future developments.