Explore whether AI tokens are emerging as commodities and what insights from Jensen Huang and China's Data Chief mean for the AI economy.
In the same week, two very different voices framed AI in almost identical terms. At Nvidia’s GTC, Jensen Huang described AI tokens as a commodity and floated the idea of giving engineers token budgets worth half their base salary. Days later, Liu Liehong, head of China’s National Data Administration, called tokens a “settlement unit” and a “value anchor for the intelligent era”.
“Tokens are the new commodity.”
“A settlement unit and a value anchor.”
The Reddit post below connects the dots: both leaders are trying to reprice AI around productive output, not subscriptions. The argument is simple: if tokens are where value is created, they should be budgeted and priced like energy or raw materials – a cost you invest to produce something measurable – rather than a flat SaaS fee.
Read the original discussion on Reddit.
Tokens are the units models use to process and generate text or multimodal output. Today most buyers encounter them through opaque “usage included” plans or headline per-1,000 token prices. The post argues that’s the wrong mental model.
“The tokens are where the value gets created.”
Think of compute and energy as the crude oil. Tokens are the refined product. They even come in grades:
In this framing, token spend is an input to production. If a £400k engineer uses only a trivial amount of tokens, something’s wrong – you’re under-investing in the “fuel” that increases output per head. This matches what the post highlights from GTC:
“I’d be deeply alarmed if a $500,000 engineer consumed only $5,000 in tokens.”
The post claims leading labs are burning cash to subsidise usage – OpenAI reportedly projecting $17B cash burn and Anthropic spending around $19B against break-even revenue. Whether or not those specific figures change, the direction of travel is clear: the current model is not sustainable.
Framing tokens as a commodity enables value-based pricing. Organisations can plan token budgets the way they plan cloud spend or electricity. Once buyers measure return per token – not just total cost – prices can move towards what the output is actually worth.
Goldman Sachs research cited in the post suggests around 30% productivity gains on targeted tasks (e.g. support, software development). If that holds, a clear ROI story emerges for disciplined buyers.
The post sketches an energy-like market structure. China is positioned as a low-cost producer by converting cheap renewables plus efficient architectures into cheaper tokens. US providers compete at the premium end – better reliability, sovereignty controls, and deeper reasoning.
| Provider/tier (as cited) | Example price per 1M output tokens | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| MiniMax (China) | $2–$3 | Low-cost “regular grade” output |
| Moonshot (China) | $2–$3 | Low-cost “regular grade” output |
| US premium models | ~$15 | Reliability, sovereignty, deeper reasoning |
| Context windows/latency | Not disclosed | Depends on model/version |
Crucially, different applications need different grades. A bulk summarisation pipeline? Cheap, regular-grade tokens. A regulated claims decisioning workflow? Premium-grade tokens with auditable behaviour and data controls.
For UK teams, the “tokens as commodity” idea has immediate, practical implications.
To make consumption budgets work, you need measurement.
If you want a lightweight way to start tracking usage centrally, I’ve shared a practical guide to wire up ChatGPT with Google Sheets for simple dashboards and auditing: How to connect ChatGPT and Google Sheets.
The Reddit post makes a persuasive case: tokens aren’t a line item to minimise; they’re an input to production. That’s why Jensen Huang and Liu Liehong landed on commodity and settlement language at the same time. As subsidies fade, the winners won’t just build better models – they’ll master the economics of token consumption.
For UK leaders, the next step is practical: set consumption budgets, route tasks to the right “grade” of model, and measure return per token. Once you can say “we spend £X to generate £Y of value”, you’re no longer buying AI as software – you’re operating an AI economy.
Related
Software engineers and AI: more output, not more value? A recent Reddit thread from a distinguished engineer in an AWS vertical struck a nerve. The claim is simple: AI has clearly increased visible activity – more documents, more code commits, more test harnesses – but not the value that users actually feel. “I see a [...]
JoshuaJuly 5, 2026
Last updated
Category
aiViews
57 viewsLikes
No ratings yet
The AI adoption gap is real: what a blunt Reddit post gets right A recent Reddit thread tells a familiar story. A marketing-tech founder demos “AI agents” to a senior stakeholder at a big brand. The exec is sceptical, calls them “wrappers”, then asks for help setting up a WhatsApp broadcast channel. The punchline isn’t [...]
JoshuaJuly 5, 2026
Making a 3D RPG with AI only: what was built and why it matters A Redditor has shared an ambitious “AI-only” game dev experiment: a third-person 3D RPG prototype created without writing code, driven entirely by prompts to the muranyi-3 model from Tesana AI. You can read the full thread here: Making a RPG game [...]
JoshuaJuly 5, 2026
No comments yet - start the conversation.