friend of mine told me Antropic turned off 200 usd a month subscription, refused to extend and switched to usage base for large cyberop vendor he works for
when this happened PR rate dropped 95% in the first day, thousands devs, managers started to panic and downscaling all AI first intiatives
and cap 500 usd a month token usage . most tokens were burned in the first day of the week.
as management got pissed, M$ people managed to sneak in and sell Copilot with up 600 usd a month token usage per dev …
devs and devops are now the most unhappy about models switch and probably haven’t seen the impact of sucking entire code base in copilot. copilot is too slow for them too. addiction to claude code is clearly present. using personal software licenses and unauthorised soft is strictly forbidden
story is clearly not over yet ..
as for myself, i’m ready to pay up to 1k usd a month … if if … claude gives the edge… but if it becomes commodity im gone next day
very curious what other devs in corporations are experiencing. deep inside cheerleading for 2 tie token ecosystem - full price for corporations and subsidized for small shops and indie
Codex CLI is pretty good. Codex GUI is fine but I can't get over how it dumbs it down.
IMO, $500 a month is pretty good for most dev work if you select models appropriately for the task (yourself), especially with how token efficient Opus 5.5 medium is. Unfortunately, people with subscription seats can easily get addicted to Fable, higher effort, fast mode, etc.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by dumbs it down? Chalk it up to inertia, but I still love Claude code CLI the best, but when using Codex, I tend to use the app. I don’t know why. No good reason. I’m guessing you mean you get much better results with the CLI?
If I could find a vendor that scales stupid simple qwen3.8-flash-next quant 4 that only needs 40GB VRAM and PLE, but is blazing fast.
I think most of ya'll drive those 70's gas guzzling death machines while honda, toyotas, etc are right around the corner to eat your lunch because, man, these low rate models absolutely cook.
What edge do you expect to have? Your competition will be using the same models as you are. Anytime one model takes over another people just migrate to the new one, you can get a small edge for maybe a few days if you're first to migrate, but that's not something meaningful to differentiate yourself
> They own no Anthropic equity and don’t share in its profits
Can they own other AI related equities?
I guess there's a lack of details to go on at this point. Finding humans that you'd want as trustees and have also truly no conflicts of interest will be tricky.
Tokens or something similar like credits? In the world of crypto it was common to receive a relatively small share of a company while you were compensated in tokens.
"Synthetic Risk Transfers are financial instruments that allow banks to transfer the credit risk of some assets to third-party investors while retaining ownership of those assets. Investors typically agree to cover losses up to a certain threshold in exchange for a return, usually a premium or interest payment."
"SRT is not a new technology, with the first SRT instruments in Europe already in use as early as 1998. Europe has been the dominant market, accounting for more than two-thirds of the US$1.1 trillion of assets covered by an SRT since 2016, according to the IMF. However, SRT usage in the US has risen significantly since 2023."
The article is mostly about how this trust is powerful and there are very few details of how it operates or under what circumstances it would take an action. When Anthropic goes public, is that the kind of thing that would need to be disclosed? Would we expect to know all the details of the trust?
I feel like people forget that FTX was an early major investor in Anthropic. The origins of Anthropic are incredibly shady and tie into the Effective Altruism scene. They also have Epstein ties with Dario's wife pitching Epstein for funding on a porn site.
I don't actually think Anthropic will achieve its goal of getting AGI before everyone else and creating an effective moat where it can deploy that AGI to achieve EA/Epstein goals, but it's concerning that they're trying to!
Same. Opus 5.5 was my first exposure to a finally smart-enough model and I was blown away at how it reverse engineered everything I pointed it at. But after a few weeks, the undecipherable prose and "safety-first" everything are making it increasingly unpleasant for my toy project. I really don't care if it breaks anything, just merge the damn PR and stop roadblocking me. Oh and I guess I need to start being less curt with it, or else Anthropic may decide I'm verbally abusing their token generator and ban me?
I'll use the best tool for the job, but I am eagerly awaiting for others to catch up so I can stop giving money to those weirdos. I'm proactively going to start shifting my usage to OpenAI, and then diversify further into other providers as they get good enough.
Same. Their writing always feels sleazy and dishonest, like they're faking a disgusting aura of paternalistic integrity.
A good thought to keep in mind about Anthropic:
> "Anthropic believes that they are the ones who should have final say over how Anthropic is used; given that they think only they should be developing leading edge AI, they by extension think that only they should have final say over AI generally. When you further combine this realization with the company’s pronouncements about AI’s ability to conduct all economic activity, you realize that Anthropic’s leadership effectively wants to have power over everything and everyone."
The whole "model welfare" rules are pure delusion, I will never rely on an inference provider that comes up with arbitrary rules like that one.
Imagine using the claude API to process user data as part of your system and one day you wake up to an elevated failure rate alert because the AI provider decided it isn't safe for the model to be exposed to insults, or whatever other perfectly legal but gross, edgy, denigrating topics they think are off limit. If they would have set a high threshold there could be an argument to have (still delusional though, those models are purely static, compressed datasets). But they already set the bar ridiculously low by barring "being mean to claude"
A lot of SV is tied to the Effective Altruism scene. It kind of has to be. If you make absolutely insane amounts of money with anti-consumer and legally-grey business practices, you have to somehow justify what you're doing. Since no one likes identifying themselves as a slimy businessperson with a potential personality disorder, they look for positive ways to frame it.
There's really no redeeming that area at this point.
But with a 2T valuation-- if they did raise, let's say, 300B, that's a 15% float, maybe they'd have a chance.
518 B in future compute obligations for the coming decade. 300 B, then 218 B is left. That's 13x their current revenue, not too far from 10x their current revenue.
Perhaps they could survive if they raised 300B. With that they'd only need to increase revenue a little bit, and that's probably possible, what with inflation and all.
The big problem is if there's improvements in AI accelerators that aren't going to be be bought by the companies that the people to whom Anthropic have obligations are likely to buy from. So if Google, AWS or NVIDIA end up not being the leaders in tokens/$, then Anthropic are screwed.
I'm not sure how the total picture ends up if one adds OpenAI to the picture.
Why? Do you think frontier AI will never generate enough profit to justify its costs? The market seems to move on vibes rather than logic. I can imagine one of those company failing and the other seizing the market.
Tangentially: The costs could be justified even if it doesn't turn into profit, no? Because if the price of good, robust software plummets, then that itself would be a a solid return on investment for the world.
while what you say is true, trillions of dollars and thousands of people invested in something that ultimately leads to a few companies from china doing the same 10x cheaper is a vibe that can go so far
I know that there are a few regulated industries that will go out of their way to not have any prod data ever exposed outside of the United States.
"China can do it cheaper" applies well to your personal projects. It doesn't apply well when you handle things like trade secrets, healthcare, or financial data.
> It doesn't apply well when you handle things like trade secrets, healthcare, or financial data.
OpneAI stole valuable secrets from their customers Buckmaster and Alpöge, why should a company expect them not to do the same with their trade secrets?
I promise you China can do it cheaper is good enough for many corporates that have neutral views at best on the labs
These are open models, go speak to corporates see what they’re up to
Also the healthcare bit is funny. Go ask the healthcare bigs and their intermediates what they’re doing today, hint it’s India
American corporates have zero loyalty to America or Americans, and they love bypassing laws, attempting regulatory capture on American corps is braindead and shows a weak hand, as they speak all this bluster about 2-3T valuations for an easily reproducible technology
> Also the healthcare bit is funny. Go ask the healthcare bigs and their intermediates what they’re doing today, hint it’s India
Funny you should mention that.
I am a team lead in a healthcare IT company. On my team are two people in India and one person (besides me) in the US.
These aren't contractors. They're full-time employees. Vetted, interviewed, subject to corporate policies like everyone here in the US, given a VPN to connect to things with.
Wanna guess what they are absolutely forbidden from doing by the contract that our clients signed, and by extension, what the people located in the US spend a lot of time doing that they otherwise wouldn't have to?
> American corporates have zero loyalty to America or Americans, and they love bypassing laws, attempting regulatory capture on American corps is braindead and shows a weak hand, as they speak all this bluster about 2-3T valuations for an easily reproducible technology
No arguments there, they should be taught the meaning of loyalty.
huh? assuming you're in america right now, the device you're using to publish that comment has been built in china or had most of it's components anyways, which are from some very trade secret-sensitive companies
> Do you think frontier AI will never generate enough profit to justify its costs?
I don't know, but I'm not sure it matters. Anthropic and OpenAI still have such large market shares only because their services are heavily subsidized. This can't go on forever.
At some point, they will have to stop burning investor money and start hiking prices. At that point, all of their competitors will look even better than they do now. So I don't see how these two companies in particular can generate enough profit to justify their costs.
Correct and before some idiot comes in and says ‘high gross profit margin’
Yeah shut up idiot - they need to raise prices to cover operating expenditures and reinvestment that stays inline with the valuation. If it implodes they’ll have trouble raising money later and they’ll need to lay off people - aka on bad terms.
They and their partners can’t pay off the debt to buy top-of-the-line inference hardware before it becomes obsolete and requires more debt to buy the next generation of top-of-the-line inference hardware.
This cycle will continue every 3-5 years. Given the supply for this hardware can’t keep up with the demand, they’ll be expected to pay more with each cycle.
Contrary to popular belief, plenty of long-term profitable businesses have no moat. It's just that if you use Warren Buffett's investment strategy and want to buy stocks to keep for decades, companies with moats are the surest way of doing that.
when this happened PR rate dropped 95% in the first day, thousands devs, managers started to panic and downscaling all AI first intiatives and cap 500 usd a month token usage . most tokens were burned in the first day of the week.
as management got pissed, M$ people managed to sneak in and sell Copilot with up 600 usd a month token usage per dev …
devs and devops are now the most unhappy about models switch and probably haven’t seen the impact of sucking entire code base in copilot. copilot is too slow for them too. addiction to claude code is clearly present. using personal software licenses and unauthorised soft is strictly forbidden
story is clearly not over yet ..
as for myself, i’m ready to pay up to 1k usd a month … if if … claude gives the edge… but if it becomes commodity im gone next day
very curious what other devs in corporations are experiencing. deep inside cheerleading for 2 tie token ecosystem - full price for corporations and subsidized for small shops and indie
IMO, $500 a month is pretty good for most dev work if you select models appropriately for the task (yourself), especially with how token efficient Opus 5.5 medium is. Unfortunately, people with subscription seats can easily get addicted to Fable, higher effort, fast mode, etc.
I think most of ya'll drive those 70's gas guzzling death machines while honda, toyotas, etc are right around the corner to eat your lunch because, man, these low rate models absolutely cook.
What edge do you expect to have? Your competition will be using the same models as you are. Anytime one model takes over another people just migrate to the new one, you can get a small edge for maybe a few days if you're first to migrate, but that's not something meaningful to differentiate yourself
sounds like a slop fest was going on, the quality will probably improve now
Can they own other AI related equities?
I guess there's a lack of details to go on at this point. Finding humans that you'd want as trustees and have also truly no conflicts of interest will be tricky.
https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/market-selloff-risi...
"Synthetic Risk Transfers are financial instruments that allow banks to transfer the credit risk of some assets to third-party investors while retaining ownership of those assets. Investors typically agree to cover losses up to a certain threshold in exchange for a return, usually a premium or interest payment."
"SRT is not a new technology, with the first SRT instruments in Europe already in use as early as 1998. Europe has been the dominant market, accounting for more than two-thirds of the US$1.1 trillion of assets covered by an SRT since 2016, according to the IMF. However, SRT usage in the US has risen significantly since 2023."
https://www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/FRBP/Assets/Economy/...
https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/wp/2025/engli...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-09-07/deutsche-...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-07-30/socgen-ne...
https://cryptobriefing.com/lenders-challenges-financing-data...
Banks seek to offload risk to avoid choking on data centre debt
https://www.ft.com/content/08aba5e4-5834-4e79-a48d-989a2c5ba...
https://www.disruptionbanking.com/2026/09/24/could-ai-data-c...
> It can seat four members of Anthropic’s seven-member board, and dismiss them without cause.
Good luck without a risk factor and description of that thing in the prospectus the first time that authority is invoked on a public company.
Trusts are not a new mechanism.
Market seems to tolerate bullshit better than I expected
I don't actually think Anthropic will achieve its goal of getting AGI before everyone else and creating an effective moat where it can deploy that AGI to achieve EA/Epstein goals, but it's concerning that they're trying to!
FTX Investment:
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/25/ftx-estate-sells-majority-st...
Dario's wife and Epstein:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2026/08/14/who-is-...
I'll use the best tool for the job, but I am eagerly awaiting for others to catch up so I can stop giving money to those weirdos. I'm proactively going to start shifting my usage to OpenAI, and then diversify further into other providers as they get good enough.
A good thought to keep in mind about Anthropic:
> "Anthropic believes that they are the ones who should have final say over how Anthropic is used; given that they think only they should be developing leading edge AI, they by extension think that only they should have final say over AI generally. When you further combine this realization with the company’s pronouncements about AI’s ability to conduct all economic activity, you realize that Anthropic’s leadership effectively wants to have power over everything and everyone."
Source: https://stratechery.com/2026/anthropics-safety-superpower/
Imagine using the claude API to process user data as part of your system and one day you wake up to an elevated failure rate alert because the AI provider decided it isn't safe for the model to be exposed to insults, or whatever other perfectly legal but gross, edgy, denigrating topics they think are off limit. If they would have set a high threshold there could be an argument to have (still delusional though, those models are purely static, compressed datasets). But they already set the bar ridiculously low by barring "being mean to claude"
There's really no redeeming that area at this point.
Edit: thanks for adding! Interesting stuff.
The numbers are out there for all. Dropping token prices. Rising borrowing rates. Absurd contractual commitments. Commoditizing technology.
But with a 2T valuation-- if they did raise, let's say, 300B, that's a 15% float, maybe they'd have a chance.
518 B in future compute obligations for the coming decade. 300 B, then 218 B is left. That's 13x their current revenue, not too far from 10x their current revenue.
Perhaps they could survive if they raised 300B. With that they'd only need to increase revenue a little bit, and that's probably possible, what with inflation and all.
The big problem is if there's improvements in AI accelerators that aren't going to be be bought by the companies that the people to whom Anthropic have obligations are likely to buy from. So if Google, AWS or NVIDIA end up not being the leaders in tokens/$, then Anthropic are screwed.
I'm not sure how the total picture ends up if one adds OpenAI to the picture.
"China can do it cheaper" applies well to your personal projects. It doesn't apply well when you handle things like trade secrets, healthcare, or financial data.
OpneAI stole valuable secrets from their customers Buckmaster and Alpöge, why should a company expect them not to do the same with their trade secrets?
These are open models, go speak to corporates see what they’re up to
Also the healthcare bit is funny. Go ask the healthcare bigs and their intermediates what they’re doing today, hint it’s India
American corporates have zero loyalty to America or Americans, and they love bypassing laws, attempting regulatory capture on American corps is braindead and shows a weak hand, as they speak all this bluster about 2-3T valuations for an easily reproducible technology
Funny you should mention that.
I am a team lead in a healthcare IT company. On my team are two people in India and one person (besides me) in the US.
These aren't contractors. They're full-time employees. Vetted, interviewed, subject to corporate policies like everyone here in the US, given a VPN to connect to things with.
Wanna guess what they are absolutely forbidden from doing by the contract that our clients signed, and by extension, what the people located in the US spend a lot of time doing that they otherwise wouldn't have to?
> American corporates have zero loyalty to America or Americans, and they love bypassing laws, attempting regulatory capture on American corps is braindead and shows a weak hand, as they speak all this bluster about 2-3T valuations for an easily reproducible technology
No arguments there, they should be taught the meaning of loyalty.
I don't know, but I'm not sure it matters. Anthropic and OpenAI still have such large market shares only because their services are heavily subsidized. This can't go on forever.
At some point, they will have to stop burning investor money and start hiking prices. At that point, all of their competitors will look even better than they do now. So I don't see how these two companies in particular can generate enough profit to justify their costs.
Yeah shut up idiot - they need to raise prices to cover operating expenditures and reinvestment that stays inline with the valuation. If it implodes they’ll have trouble raising money later and they’ll need to lay off people - aka on bad terms.
This cycle will continue every 3-5 years. Given the supply for this hardware can’t keep up with the demand, they’ll be expected to pay more with each cycle.
Heard of it? No? Shut up then. You have no idea what you’re talking about.