Ambient is the open source, proof of useful work AI project the world desperately needs 🌎🤖
I couldn’t be more excited for @IridiumEagle to showcase @Ambient_xyz
A few years ago, our team met Travis. He instantly struck our entire team with a sense of extreme technical ability and thoughtfulness in everything he discussed, from open source AI, to crypto and tokeneconomics (both AI tokens and crypto economics). Travis has been on our podcast several times over the years and these are linked at the end. Soon after, he published “Situational Blindness,” a report that was a response to Leopold Aschenbrenner’s “Situational Awareness.”
In his Situational Blindness report, Travis argued that Big Tech platforms inevitably drift toward opacity, extraction and lock in because the economics reward it. He posited that the answer is not to trust better executives, but to build systems where behavior is open, portable and verifiable. Open weights are not enough if the serving layer is still centralized, black box and censorable. Ambient is that thesis applied to AI inference.
Ambient is a proof of useful work network that rewards miners for hyper serving a few foundational AI models. Miners compete on serving models and get rewarded for doing so. The world benefits this competition in the form of, low latency, low cost, truly open AI infra, with no centralized component. Fast forward to today, Ambient is live and in the open.
Today, Ambient makes its public reveal
I love bullets to walk through how it works so lets go through the flow
1/ A user comes to Ambient because they want AI inference. They want to hit an API, chat interface, Ambient Desktop, OpenAI compatible workflow, or OpenRouter route and get strong open models like Kimi K2.7 Code and GLM 5.1. They are not buying decentralized compute. They are buying model access at the cheapest and lowest cost from a verified network of miners who hyper compete to serve these models transparently.
2/ The wedge is that open models are now good enough for real workloads. Kimi K2.7 Code has a 262K context window, activates 32B parameters out of roughly 1T total, and is built for long context coding. GLM 5.1 has a 203K context window and is positioned around long horizon coding and agentic engineering. Closed models still win the hardest tasks, but most tokens will route to the best mix of price, latency, reliability, privacy, and quality. I’ve strongly been in favor of this shift and have shared my thoughts here already.
3/ Ambient has to win on hard metrics like cost/latency, not ideology. OpenRouter lists Kimi K2.7 Code at $0.75 per 1M input tokens and $3.50 per 1M output tokens. GLM 5.1 is listed at $0.98 input and $3.08 output. In the provider snapshot, Ambient’s Kimi endpoint was $0.75 input, $3.50 output, 2.08s latency, and 23 tokens/sec and cheaper than most listed peers while still usable. The claim should be: competitive cost today, better market structure over time. Ambient has more usage for Kimi over Moonshot itself, who created the model!
4/ When a request hits Ambient, it becomes an inference job: model requested, input size, output budget, latency constraint, price ceiling, and quality requirements. The system can bundle similar requests and run a reverse auction where miners compete to serve the work. A global network of physical miners running GPUs compete to serve the request at the lowest cost and highest quality.
5/ The miners are real GPU operators and they deploy physical hardware. Kimi and GLM have to be hosted in GPU memory. Operators manage batching, KV cache, token streaming, networking, uptime, quantization choices, and serving software. The scarce resource is high-VRAM compute that can keep large models hot and serve tokens reliably.
6/ Miners mostly compete in a global race to serve the same requested model better. They should not win by secretly routing you to a weaker model. They win through lower cost per token, lower latency, higher throughput, better batching, higher uptime, more available capacity, and software optimizations inside allowed quality bounds. This is where useful work becomes real as the network pays the operator who can deliver the requested intelligence cheapest and fastest without degrading the product.
7/ Ambient’s blockchain side is needed because untrusted global hardware needs neutral rules. Without a chain, Ambient is just another centralized router deciding who gets traffic and who gets paid. Ambient’s chain handles job creation, auctions, bid commitments, settlement, rewards, reputation, verifier assignment, and penalties. The chain handles coordination among operators that do not need to know or trust each other in a transparent manner. Net Ambient’s chain is the transparent coordination m,echanism that organizes and rewards miners competing in the global race to serve models better.
8/ Verification is the crucial unlock. Cheap inference markets are rife with cheating. Serving the wrong model, wrong quantization, hidden routing, degraded outputs, fake privacy. Ambient’s Proof of Logits is meant to fingerprint model execution through internal logits so validators can check work without rerunning the entire job. A user doesn’t have to guess or roll the dice on a model provider as Ambient’s network handles verification so a user just comes to the network, gets the benefit of a global race to provide the model the best and they get their request.
9/ This is the proof of useful work component. A user pays for inference. Miners compete to serve it. The network routes, settles, verifies, and rewards miners who serve the model the best. Ambient’s token is the incentive and coordination asset for useful work powering an open source AI network.
10/ The long term open source implication is the big one. Open weights are not enough if serious usage still runs through centralized clouds and black box APIs. Ambient is trying to give open models their missing serving layer: global GPUs, market pricing, verification, payments, reputation, and normal developer access.
11/ Play this out to an extreme and Ambient has the potential to be the coordination network for the world to compete within models and across models to serve the end user the lowest cost and highest quality intelligence.
12/ Why is this necessary? At face value as a user you get reliable/brand trusted inference at low costs. At the extreme an entire world of applications can be built on Ambient’s chain without ever having to worry about the model getting turned off or deplatformed or facing egregious costs given the global race to serve models competitively. It becomes naturally safer to deploy models on Ambient since you know they will persist, you know they can’t be turned off and you know you will always be getting the lowest cost for your service.
At @Delphi_Ventures we've backed Travis twice - originally in his pre-seed round and again in their most recent seed round because we feel an immense sense or urgency in the work of tangibly providing the world with a global intelligence utility.
At Delphi Ventures we are deep believers in open source AI and backing the most impressive founders we can find and Travis, and his co-founder Max, have checked the boxes for us time and time again.
Download Ambient’s desktop app or route your agents or workloads to ambient. Sign up for a subscription and give it a try.
The most basic way AI could blow up imo. I'm not saying it does but this is the most obvious way I can see it happening
- Per seat subscriptions are massively subsidized. The flat fee was priced way below what heavy usage actually costs
- For real business use you have to move to the API anyway. Data protections, work integrations and compliance officer approval
- On the API you pay metered rates, and businesses are burning credits way faster than the per seat pricing ever led them to expect
- This is everywhere right now. Internally for us, Codex users, Uber torching its entire 2026 AI budget in 4 months, the Microsoft comments. Just go try an API
- And I don't think most businesses have the money to keep paying increasing API rates without a real change to how they operate (caps needed)
- Because they have a cheap alternative. They can reach open source models through any aggregator (OpenRouter, Venice, Baseten, Together) and still get strong privacy. Venice private data centers, or E2EE/TEE serving GLM 5.1.
- And the discount is enormous. DeepSeek V4 codes within a hair of Opus on SWE bench at roughly 1/30th the price, and the cheapest open models run closer to 1/100th
- Chinese labs open source frontier grade models. The model is the single biggest cost an inference provider has, and they get it for free
- This idea dies if China goes closed source. That is actually bullish web2 AI labs, because if everyone is closed you pay up for the best intelligence. China goes closed source if they are tired of giving away an asset and they want the revenue and data flow to train new models
- Is this showing up in web2 AI lab revenue yet? No. Revenue is off the charts. Anthropic went from 9B to 47B run rate in five months
- So go forward, what happens?
- I think revenue slowly starts leaking to the open source inference providers (see Venice usage, OpenRouter's $113M raise, Baseten is raising at $11B or triple its valuation in three months, on revenue that went from $200M to $600M annualized in a single quarter)
- It doesnt move overnight, but it caps the labs ability to raise prices, and margins are already deeply negative. OpenAI is reportedly running near negative 122%
- With margins that bad there is no cash flow, so the labs are fully dependent on outside capital to buy GPUs, train models, and keep subsidizing usage (I.e. see Google tapping $80b equity sale, granted 30b for employee RSU taxes. Clearly they think Equity is overvalued or you wouldn't sell it)
- The break comes when that capital stops. Pricing is capped so margins cant improve, and the moment investors lose conviction on payback, the whole flow reverses
- Why would they lose conviction on payback? Back to the start - the inability to improve margins or get businesses to pay more
- This is also limiting, if we start making new drugs with AI or create entirely new businesses, you better believe people will pay up to the max for AI usage
I think this is partially why @OpenRouter just raised $113M+ by @CapitalG
If you are an inference provider you can raise a ton of money now off revenues and amass capital to buy GPUs. You can use these GPUs to offset chinese models going closed source by using them for model training/fine tunes in the future
Inference provider revenues are driven by deploying open source models in an easy and safely accessible way. You can pay 1/100 to 1/1,000 the cost to access GLM/Qwen etc vs centralized APIs and not send your data directly to chinese APIs. Yay I get cheap intelligence and China doesn't see my full conversation history on giving my friend breakup advice.
You leverage that revenue growth (API spend) to buy a capital asset (GPUs) for the future If @alexatallah buys GPUs with this $113M it solves two things. The first is he can lower inference costs even more through owning the hardware (and get a nice multiple on it and take loans against them, and repeat) and second he could use those models for training runs or fine tunes in the future if China goes fully closed source
The other issue is inference providers don't get the same data flywheel an OpenAI or Claude gets (since someone else is running the model and theres no data retention to train future versions). This could negatively impact training runs maybe. I think this is another reason china models go closed source, they want all inference to use that data for training runs and right now they are ceding the revenue and data flow.
Also, despite Meta being open source but not competitive anymore I think we will see some very strong open source AI labs in the U.S. start to pop up as an offset and existing models are good enough for inference providers for the forseeable future. China going closed would accelerate U.S. open source labs too.
At least these are my early contrarian musings. Thanks for tuning in!
I have no idea on OpenRouters plans. I have no ownership but love the product and think its extremely net positive for humanity.
I pulled 3,182 tweets analyzing @NousResearch Hermes Agent versus Claude Code to understand exactly why developers are choosing one or the other
I want to figure out why people use Hermes vs Claude/ Claude Code
Here is the breakdown using 3,182 tweets to distill the answer vs guessing 🧵
The catalyst for this analysis: Hermes Agent recently surpassed Claude Code in GitHub stars. There is nuance here. Claude Code is a closed ecosystem. Its repo serves mostly for issue tracking and documentation. Hermes is fully open source infrastructure.
While it is an uneven comparison, the vertical growth of Hermes over two months proves builders are starved for agent infrastructure they actually control
Primary drivers for adopting Hermes (3,182 tweets analyzed)
Watched @karpathy's must watch 3.5‑hour LLM deep dive and here are my favorite takeaways, surprises, and musings.
He is a god tier communicator and technical genius
My thread is below but I would recommend watching it as its the best way to learn
1a/ One standout example: DeepSeek-R1. Karpathy highlights it as a reasoning LLM pushed to its limits with reinforcement learning
Instead of just mimicking textbook solutions, DeepSeek was trained via trial and error to solve problems, especially tough math questions
1b/ DeepSeek-R1 uses large-scale RL fine-tuning on top of a base model
The result? As it learns, its answers become longer and more methodical. It will backtrack and retrace steps when needed, producing deeper reasoning chains.
This emergent behavior wasn’t pre-programmed at all!