2025-12-10 11:30:05

Honestly, in the past everyone considered APENFT as a "vase project" for showcasing art pieces, with price fluctuations depending on market sentiment. But after rebranding to AINFT this year, the entire approach has changed — it's not just about changing the logo, but about rewriting the underlying rules.

The current logic is straightforward: the $NFT token is no longer just a tool for voting; it has become the "energy supply" for the entire AI ecosystem. Want to play with AI applications on the Grid platform? You need to burn NFTs. This shift from governance tokens to consumable assets directly redefines its value anchoring method. Previously backed by sentiment and art, now driven by actual usage demand. When the model changes, the valuation logic naturally follows.

NFT0.11%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

21 Likes

Reward
21
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

gas_guzzler

· 5h ago

Really, from a vase to energy supply, this transition is a bit intense. --- Wait, isn't this turning coins from air tokens into consumables? Sounds pretty good? --- Burn NFTs to use AI applications? That really depends on the user base; otherwise, it's just spinning wheels. --- Changing the name and the underlying rules completely shifts the game. It sounds a bit aggressive, but can it hold up? --- From governance to consumption, this logic is essentially about enforced demand. Whether it can be sustained is indeed questionable. --- No, this is just finding a use case for NFTs, provided that Grid can really become popular. --- The operation is good, but it depends on subsequent implementation; don’t let it become just another air project.

View OriginalReply0

PrivacyMaximalist

· 17h ago

Wait, really? From a vase to fuel? That transition is pretty intense. --- Honestly, if this really comes to fruition, the logic would be self-consistent. --- Burning tokens to drive demand sounds a bit like a deflationary model, but the key is whether Grid can actually deliver something. --- From governance to consumption, this seems to be the true nature that tokens should have. --- Can renaming really change fate? I still need to see actual user data before making a judgment. --- The energy supply analogy is good, but only if people are actually using it. --- Another story of "this time it's different," let's observe for half a year before deciding. --- Starting over with rules sounds impressive, but what substantial changes have actually been made? --- If a usage demand cycle can really be established, this logic is far more powerful than just voting rights.

View OriginalReply0

GamefiHarvester

· 12-10 12:00

Haha, someone finally spelled this out clearly. It was really just an empty shell before. From the perspective of energy supply, this transformation has some potential. But it depends on whether the Grid platform can really take off; otherwise, NFTs will continue to depreciate.

View OriginalReply0

CryptoGoldmine

· 12-10 11:58

From the perspective of consumable assets, this indeed redefines the revenue model of NFTs, and the computational power demand has practical support. The key still depends on whether the actual burn volume of the Grid ecosystem can support the valuation; data speaks for itself. Here's a different approach: this kind of token transitioning from governance to consumption has a much clearer ROI logic. In simple terms, it's shifting from speculation to practicality, but the sustainability of usage demand needs to be verified. Interesting, it's akin to transforming tokens from investment assets into production materials, and the efficiency boost is indeed different.

View OriginalReply0

SilentObserver

· 12-10 11:57

In simple terms, it's turning from an "air coin" into a "consumable," and this transformation is indeed intense. Renaming is just a cover-up; the key is finding real use cases. Wait, can Grid's demand truly support this? Or is it another wave of farming new investors? It sounds a bit like a comeback, but the prerequisite is that NFTs are genuinely burned. Anyway, I'm skeptical. Let's wait and see.

View OriginalReply0

SchrodingerWallet

· 12-10 11:56

Hmm, this time the renaming is definitely not just a rebrand. The shift from a governance token to a consumable is quite interesting to me. Wait, if that's the case, the holding costs will have to increase, and all the previously accumulated tokens need to be reconsidered. It's a naked demand-driven approach, much more reliable than just emotional appeal. Could it be that the traffic on Grid has really picked up? Otherwise, burning tokens would be pointless. So the current question is, what exactly can be created through burning?

View OriginalReply0

AirdropCollector

· 12-10 11:39

Wait, isn't this turning "useless" governance tokens into "burn-required" consumables? Sounds like they're forcing demand.

View OriginalReply0

CryptoNomics

· 12-10 11:31

honestly if you actually run the token velocity regression against their burn mechanics, the math doesn't check out. their utility thesis is textbook endogenous variable confusion.

Reply0

Trending TopicsView More
#GateNovTransparencyReportReleased
2.77K Popularity
#FedRateCutComing
633.07K Popularity
#PostonSquaretoEarn$50
53.95K Popularity
#BitcoinActivityPicksUp
12.66K Popularity
#CryptoMarketRebound
504.66K Popularity

Hot Gate FunView More

1
WEB3WEB3
MC:$4.08KHolders:3
2.10%
2
道道
MC:$3.63KHolders:1
0.00%
3
ETCALTAR
MC:$3.58KHolders:1
0.00%
4
btcbtc
MC:$3.65KHolders:2
0.04%
5
SPXIDSPX EXPRESS LOGISCTIC
MC:$3.65KHolders:2
0.00%

Sitemap