This tweet takes a real property of Bitcoin- Proof of Work being the mechanism by which Bitcoin makes rewriting its ledger costly and establishes consensus over its history- and then makes a conceptual jump that IMO doesn’t follow economically. Bitcoin does not store compute. Once a bitcoin is circulating, it isn’t a redeemable claim on the hashes, electricity, or other resources expended to produce it. If a miner burns $100 million of electricity and ASIC depreciation mining BTC, that doesn’t embed $100 million worth of usable compute in the coins. The work has been irreversibly consumed securing the ledger. The compute isn't fungible nor are the coins "backed by energy" as many like to say. Imagine saying "Gold represents past mining effort. AI needs future mining/industrial effort. Therefore gold is uniquely suited to paying for AI." You could pay for AI with gold if the seller accepted it. But the fact that enormous amounts of energy, machinery and labor were required to produce gold doesn’t mean there's a special economic relationship between gold and AI. Bitcoin is similar. If the goal is to stockpile future compute, an actual claim on future compute is more directly related to that goal than BTC. A token redeemable for 1k GPU hours really would be “tokenized compute.” Bitcoin isn’t. Jason's tweet is basically turning Bitcoin’s production function, PoW, into a monetary use case when they are separate ideas. The framing sounds profound because the same word "compute" appears on both sides of the equation, but there is no actual conservation or transfer of compute occurring. It’s an analogy rather than a physical mechanism.