This circle has a natural belief in decentralization. So when DeAI appeared, many people's first reaction was not to study, but to be tempted. Decentralized AI. Open intelligent network. Everyone contributes computing power. Everyone uses models. Not controlled by giants. Not subject to platform censorship. Does it sound familiar? Familiarity is enough. Because in every bull market, there is a word that sounds grand, accurate, and difficult to falsify, responsible for lighting up everyone's wallets again. So here comes the question...: Is DeAI a real demand or a harvesting concept for market makers? My judgment is: In the short term, there will definitely be a lot of harvesting concepts in DeAI. In the long run, DeAI is indeed a very important path in the AI era. These two judgments do not conflict. Because the more important a direction is, the easier it is to be packaged by scammers. Just like 'new energy' is real, but it doesn't affect a bunch of projects to produce electric vehicles with white papers; Web3 "is true, but it doesn't affect a bunch of projects, leaving only the official website and Telegram in the end; 'AI' is real, but it doesn't affect that many AI coins are actually just ChatGPT API shells with a token added. DeAI is the same. Many projects call themselves DeAI, but in human terms, it means: I have a few GPUs and I want to send a coin. ” Or: I have received a model API and I want to send a coin. ” Or alternatively: I don't have anything yet, but I know the market likes AI and decentralization. ” This is certainly the concept of harvesting. But if DeAI is said to be worthless because of this, then it goes to another extreme. Because the real importance of DeAI is not "blockchain makes AI smarter", nor "just sending a coin can overturn OpenAI". What is truly important about DeAI is: AI is becoming infrastructure. If infrastructure is controlled by a few companies, it is not a simple business issue, but a matter of control. The current AI world is becoming more and more like a super central kitchen. The menu was written by several model companies. The kitchen is operated by several cloud vendors. The ingredients are GPU and data. They set the price. They set the business hours. They can also order whatever dishes you can order. You say: Master, I want to eat some spicy food He said no, platform policies do not allow it. You say: Shall I bring some ingredients myself He said it's not possible, it violates the terms of service. You say: Can you at least tell me how this dish is made He said sorry, it's a trade secret. This is the reality of AI today. Ordinary users may not feel strong now because they only use AI to write copy, draw pictures, and search for information. But if AI really becomes a workflow, trading system, research tool, programming assistant, financial agent, personal assistant in the future, the problem will be completely different. By then, whoever controls AI will have control over a significant portion of the productivity entrance. So the core of DeAI is not to make AI better at chatting. But instead, ask a more fundamental question: Can we have an AI infrastructure that is not entirely dependent on giants? This is the real demand of DeAI. Many people understand DeAI and first think of cheap GPUs. This understanding is correct, but too shallow. Cheap GPUs are just the first layer. Just like running a restaurant, cheap kitchen rent is certainly important, but what really matters is: Who owns the kitchen? Who controls the ingredients? Who reviews the menu? Who takes away customer data? Who settles the account book? Who is responsible if there is a problem? AI is the same. What DeAI needs to solve is actually a whole set of problems. Firstly, access rights. Today, a centralized API that can increase prices, limit traffic, ban accounts, and remove models, as well as suddenly lose something that you could have used yesterday due to changes in policies, regions, and company strategies. For individual users, this is called poor experience. For enterprises, this is called supply chain risk. For countries and industries, this is called the AI sovereignty issue. If AI is the entrance of future productivity, there should not be only a few security guards the final say on the entrance. Secondly, operational rights. Many people say: Isn't there an open-source model? You can just download it yourself, right That sounds right, but it's only half right. Open source models are like recipes. Just because you receive the recipe doesn't mean you can open a restaurant. You also need a kitchen, chef, gas, supply chain, kitchen management, takeaway system, and hygiene license. If it were AI, you would still need GPU, deployment, inference, scheduling, monitoring, post training, tool invocation, and stable services. Without these, the open-source model is just a fitness card in the hard drive: It looks very free, but in fact, I haven't been there once. If DeAI can organize dispersed computing power, models, and services, there will be a chance to turn "open AI" from a slogan into usable infrastructure. Thirdly, the right of verification. If a node tells you: I just ran it for you with the strongest model How do you know it's not secretly using cheap small models to deceive you? It's like when you order Wagyu and the kitchen serves you synthetic meat, you can't even look at the kitchen yet. So one important thing for the future is verifiable reasoning. It's not 'believe me, I really ran away'. But instead, you don't have to believe me, you can verify that I ran away. This is the difference between DeAI and regular cloud services. Centralized services rely on brand endorsement. DeAI relies on mechanism endorsement. Fourth, data rights. The interaction data of AI is very valuable. How you ask questions, modify, provide feedback, debug, and use tools are all important fuels for future model improvement. Many users now think they are using AI for free, but in reality, they may be paying with their own data. It's like going to a restaurant for a free buffet, only to find out after finishing that you have contributed your home menu, shopping list, and bank card password to the kitchen. DeAI has proposed at least one direction: Can user data, model usage, node contributions, and value allocation be made more transparent, traceable, and negotiable? This is not a small issue. Fifth, the economic power of the agent. Future AI agents are not just about answering questions. It may help you book tickets, trade, write code, call APIs, manage assets, and coordinate with other agents. Then it requires identity, authorization, payment, auditing, permission boundaries, and accountability records. These things are actually where Crypto excels. Crypto is not good at making AI smarter. But it excels at enabling participants who do not trust each other to settle, verify, and collaborate in an open network. So the real intersection between AI and Crypto is not 'AI generates meme images and then issues coins'. That's called a cyber roadside stall. The true point of integration is: AI requires operation, verification, payment, identity, and settlement; Crypto happens to excel at verification, incentives, assets, and settlement in open networks. These two things can be bitten here. Of course, DeAI is definitely not a panacea. The biggest problem with many DeAI projects now is treating "decentralization" as a panacea. Privacy has not been resolved, say decentralization. Delay not resolved, say decentralization. Without users, say decentralization. There is no cost advantage, say decentralization. Token has no value capture, also known as decentralization. It seems that once the project is decentralized, all issues will automatically queue up and kneel down. Of course, reality is not like that. Decentralization does not automatically bring benefits. Because coordination, redundancy, verification, and network transmission all require costs. Decentralization does not automatically bring privacy. If nodes can see your prompt or intermediate data, it may be even more exciting than centralization. Decentralization does not automatically bring about real demand. Many online platforms may seem lively in the early days, but in reality, they are just project teams offering subsidies to encourage everyone to pretend to be prosperous. Decentralization will not automatically make tokens valuable. The protocol is useful, but it does not necessarily mean that the token will receive money. So when judging a DeAI project, we cannot just look at whether it has AI or whether it has a chain. There are three things to consider: Can technology really run? Does the demand really exist? Can value really return to network participants? Missing one can easily turn into a large-scale narrative magic. My final judgment on DeAI is: In the short term, it will definitely harvest the hardest hit areas. In the long run, it will definitely be the second system that the AI world needs. There is a high probability that there will be two sets of AI infrastructure coexisting in the future. One is centralized AI. Strong performance, good experience, and fast commercialization, just like chain restaurants in large shopping malls. Another approach is decentralized AI. More open, more resistant to control, more verifiable, and more suitable for global collaboration, just like the hotpot world of table sharing across the entire network. Centralized AI will not disappear. DeAI will not defeat giants overnight. But as long as AI becomes increasingly important, humans cannot always accept only one central kitchen. So, is DeAI the harvesting concept of the banker? Many projects are. Is DeAI really needed? This direction itself is. The difference lies in: Fake DeAI is to cover the air with a layer of AI skin and then cover the AI skin with a layer of token. Truly DeAI is the process of turning a piece of power in the AI world that was previously held by giants back into a part of the open network. The former sells emotions. The latter is competing for control. So the word DeAI itself is not valuable. What is valuable is: Which pot did it retrieve from the central kitchen.