Author: Max, 01Founder

On April 27, the deal between Manus and Meta, which has been under discussion for months, finally reached a conclusion.

It is not “under continued review.”

It is not “supplementary materials.”

Instead, it is a ban on investment and a request to withdraw the deal.

These words carry weight.

Because they express not just a normal business opinion, but an attitude.

Meta missing out on acquiring a company is certainly not the end of the world.

Manus missing out on $2 billion is also not the first bubble bursting in the AI industry.

Every day in the entrepreneurial world, there are failures in fundraising, mergers, and valuations going to zero; such stories are not new.

But this time is different.

In the past, many entrepreneurs tended to view their companies as purely commercial entities.

If they made good products, saw user growth, and saw valuations rise, capital exits would follow; this is a very natural path.

However, AI is not a business from the previous generation of the internet.

AI is not a new app category, nor is it a smarter office tool.

AI is becoming the decisive factor in the next round of competition.

Whoever masters model capabilities will control the next generation of software access.

Whoever has intelligent agent products may dominate the next generation of workflows.

Whoever has AI infrastructure and application ecosystems will have an extra card in future industrial divisions.

This is not just a single company tripping.

It is an old world model that has failed.

PART.01, The Old World Model Has Failed

For the past decade or more, Chinese entrepreneurs have had a very mature default script in their minds.

People are in China, the market is in China, engineers are in China, and products grow in China.

But financing can be done in dollars, legal entities can offshore, IPOs can be in the United States, and when necessary, offices can be moved to Hong Kong, Singapore, or Silicon Valley.

This setup has been functioning for many years.

The underlying assumption is:

China needs growth, the U.S. needs assets, capital needs exits, and entrepreneurs need stories.

Everyone cooperates in a gray area, able to grow companies, provide capital exits, and allow founders to cash out; this was success.

The core contradiction of that era was not “who owns the technology,” but “how to grow a company, how to provide capital exits, and how to continue growth.”

As long as this overarching logic persists, many ambiguities can be tolerated.

You could be a Chinese operation, use dollar capital, have an offshore structure, or go for a U.S. IPO.

Everyone knows that there are many gray areas, but that era was willing to leave an escape route for such gray areas.

But AI is different.

AI is not group buying, not food delivery, not e-commerce, nor merely an upgrade of a short video recommendation algorithm.

AI has today been placed in a competitive framework.

Model capabilities, engineering talent, training data, inference systems, intelligent agent products, commercialization access—any segment can be considered a strategic asset.

At this point, if you use the worldview of internet companies from the 2010s to handle AI companies in 2026, problems will arise.

Many people do not lack judgment; instead, their world models have not been updated.

They still think this is a game of capital when in fact the game table has changed.

Previously, you primarily dealt with investors, users, exchanges, and merger lawyers.

Now you must also face security reviews, export controls, technological boundaries, and competition.

This change is not just happening in China.

America is changing too.

In the past, global capital believed in efficiency.

Wherever there are cheaper talents, capital flows there;

wherever there is a larger market, companies go there;

wherever valuations are higher, projects list there.

The underlying logic of globalization is resource allocation efficiency.

But today, the underlying logic of globalization is changing to boundaries.

Technology has boundaries.

Data has boundaries.

Computing power has boundaries.

Capital has boundaries.

Talent mobility is also beginning to have boundaries.

This is the aspect that many entrepreneurs find hardest to accept.

It’s not that they are not working hard, nor that their products lack opportunities, but that the map in their minds is outdated.

What entrepreneurs fear most is not hard work.

Entrepreneurs all understand hard work.

What they fear most is running hard, only to find halfway that the map has changed.

PART.02 Location, Location, Location

In the business world, many people love to talk about capabilities.

Product ability, financing ability, growth ability, organizational ability, technical ability, narrative ability.

These are certainly important.

But in great times, the most important factor is often not ability, but location.

Where do you stand?

Whom do you prove your value to?

From whose soil do you grow?

In key moments, to whom do you hand over your technical assets?

These questions may seem abstract at times.

Entrepreneurs don’t like to write about them in financing PPTs, and investors don’t always like to ask.

Everyone is more concerned with ARR, DAU, retention, valuations, and who is investing in the next round.

That’s how the human business world works; as indicators multiply, minds tend to pretend to be clear-headed.

But when documents come down, these questions are not abstract at all.

Manus’s problem is not its desire to internationalize.

Chinese companies can certainly internationalize.

It’s also not that it wants to make dollars.

Startups wanting an exit is not an original sin.

The real issue is that it doesn't seem to have clarified its position.

If you decide from day one to be a fully American company, then from day one you should register, finance, hire, research, serve clients, and accept regulation there.

If you decide from day one to be a fully Singaporean company, then from day one you should build a team, conduct business, establish compliance, and accept local rules in Singapore.

These are all choices.

But if you have grown up in China’s technical ecosystem, benefited from the Chinese engineering talent bonus, and enjoyed the attention of the Chinese AI startup narrative.

Completing early volume in the Chinese market and Chinese internet, and then when valuations soar packaging yourself as a “non-Chinese asset” via structural design, and eventually selling to a U.S. giant, things will go wrong.

Because in this era, identity is not self-declared.

Identity is determined by your history.

Where you accumulate technology, where you recruit core talent, where you gain the first wave of attention, where you validate products, where you build team capabilities—these aspects all become part of your identity.

Entrepreneurs can change their registration locations.

They can change offices.

They can change financing entities.

They can change PR narratives.

But it is very difficult to change one’s history of growth.

This is the most chilling aspect of the Manus event.

It is not just asking you where you are now.

It is also asking where you came from.

PART.03 Must Have Value

In China’s tech entrepreneurship scene, many people are reluctant to talk about risks, which is understandable.

Entrepreneurs like to talk about products, users, cash flow, and the next round of financing.

Other topics sound too distant, too heavy, and can easily make people uncomfortable.

But not talking does not mean it doesn’t exist.

When grand narratives haven't affected your financing, exits, compliance, mergers, and team turnover, you can certainly pretend to be just an ordinary entrepreneur.

But once AI is placed into competition, if you don’t discuss it, it will come and discuss you.

The value of a tech company in the system has three possible states.

The first is positive value.

You can fill technological gaps, enhance industrial capabilities, and enable China to have more leverage in a key field.

You don’t necessarily have to chant slogans, but your presence objectively strengthens the system.

The second is zero value.

You are just an ordinary commercial company, creating your products, earning your money, not particularly important or dangerous.

The system may not care about you, and you may not have much impact on the overall situation.

The third is negative value.

You initially grow in the Chinese technical system but may end up packaging your key team, technical assets, product experiences, and strategic narratives to hand over to a U.S. giant.

At this stage, it’s not a matter of “whether there is a contribution,” but “whether it will create a demonstration effect.”

If you turn into negative value, it will be easy to become typical.

This statement may not sound pleasant, but it is a cold judgment.

It’s not because a particular company is exceedingly important, but because it represents a path.

What the system often aims to dismantle is not individual companies but this very path.

If the path of Manus works out, what will happen next?

A wave of Chinese AI entrepreneurs will see this path.

First, they produce technology and volume in China.

Then, they move to Singapore.

Then, they sell to American tech giants.

Then, they use “globalization entrepreneurship” to explain everything.

If this path is validated as successful, it will be a very bad demonstration for the Chinese AI ecosystem.

Because it will tell those who follow:

You can first enjoy the benefits of the Chinese technical ecosystem, wait until you grow big, then cut yourself out, and finally be acquired and integrated by American tech giants.

From the entrepreneur's personal point of view, this is certainly appealing.

But from a competitive angle, it’s a different story.

Thus, the Manus deal being called off is not just about Manus.

It’s about telling those who come after:

This path doesn’t work.

PART.04 You Can’t Want It All

So, this matter is not saying that all entrepreneurs must stay, nor that all companies with a Chinese background cannot go abroad.

On the contrary.

AI entrepreneurship should inherently be global.

Good products should serve global users.

Chinese entrepreneurs should not confine themselves to a single market.

Tools, agents, content production, enterprise automation, developer services—these naturally have global markets.

But going abroad and cutting ties are not the same thing.

Globalization and arbitrage are also not the same thing.

You can choose, but don’t fantasize about avoiding the costs.

If you don’t want to be part of the Chinese technical system, you should leave from day one.

Go to America, go to Singapore, or go to Europe; all are fine.

From day one, get money, hire people, build companies, create products, and accept local regulations there.

This is a clear choice.

You can also choose to stay seriously.

Acknowledge that you are part of the Chinese technical system, serve the Chinese industry, participate in the Chinese AI ecosystem, accept the rules, and think clearly about your relations with capital, market, technology, and system.

This is also a clear choice.

What is truly dangerous is the middle path.

Starting with Chinese speed.

Wanting dollar valuations during financing.

Desiring the halo of globalization in publicity.

Expecting American giants to take over during exit.

When the system arrives, claiming to be just an ordinary business company.

This is not globalization.

This is an incomplete choice.

In the past, many regarded this state as clever.

Because in a peace cycle, ambiguity is a form of space.

You can maneuver between different rules, switch between different markets, and seek maximum benefits in different narratives.

But in a conflict cycle, ambiguity is risk.

As Sino-American technological competition enters the realm of AI, many things that once could be ambiguously handled will be redefined.

In the past, you could say capital has no borders.

Now others will ask, who did the capital enhance?

In the past, you could say technology has no borders.

Now others will ask, where did the technology finally flow?

In the past, you could say startups are merely business entities.

Now others will ask, which side is this company on in the next round of industrial competition?

This is not only China asking.

America is asking too.

Thus, it’s not just China that has become stricter; the entire world has changed.

In the past, global capital believed in efficiency; now state competition believes in boundaries.

If entrepreneurs cannot recognize this change and still use the outbound model of the last generation of internet companies for AI businesses, it is not courage but misjudgment.

PART.05 Run Forward, Don’t Look Back

So, the reminder for all AI entrepreneurs from this matter is actually very simple:

Run forward, don’t look back.

This phrase is not just motivational.

Nor does it mean you should rush in blindly.

It means: if you have chosen a path, you must acknowledge the cost of that path.

If you want to be an American company, then start being an American company from day one.

If you want to be a Singaporean company, then start being a Singaporean company from day one.

If you want to be a Chinese company, then acknowledge you are in the Chinese system and think clearly about your relationships with technology, capital, market, and regulatory issues.

Every position has benefits.

Every position also has costs.

The most common mistake entrepreneurs make is wanting to reap the benefits of every position without wanting to bear the costs of each.

If you choose China, don’t fantasize about designing yourself entirely based on the exit logic of the previous generation of dollar internet companies.

If you choose America, don’t fantasize that you can always low-cost access Chinese technical ecosystems.

If you choose Singapore, don’t think it’s just a neutral shell that can help you erase all historical sources.

The most dangerous are those who never want to choose.

This is an era that requires more judgment of positions.

You need to know who you are.

You need to know where you come from.

You need to know whom you must prove your value to.

You should also know which side you stand on when a great era begins to redraw the lines.

This is not a moral performance.

This is a strategic judgment.

Many entrepreneurs like to say they only care about products, only care about users, only care about cash flow.

This is certainly not wrong.

But if the changes of an era can already determine your financing, exits, mergers, compliance, and company identity, then recognizing the era itself is also a form of entrepreneurial capability.

It may even be the most important entrepreneurial ability.

Because if the product is wrong, it can still be corrected.

If the financing pace is wrong, it can still be supplemented.

But if the position is wrong, the cost will be very high.

In the face of a great era, being clever is no longer the most important thing.

Position is.

Run forward, don’t look back.

Not because the path ahead is surely safe.

But because the road behind that you might want to return to is no longer there.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。