@worstcontrarian born to trade on the floor of the nyse. Forced to arb moderately illiquid token pairs that large entities write off due to sizing concerns
There is an (unpatchable?) supply-chain zero-day in PyTorch autograd that allows a regularization term to use the model's weights as RAM and SGD as its CPU clock to run any computation during training.
don't mean to pick on anyone here
high margins + increasing competition != collapsing prices
the margins create incentive for new players and capacity expansion, but that doesn't imply supply will expand fast enough to meet demand. traders who spend time in markets with inelastic supply see this. high margins can persist for ages, and if demand is growing faster than real supply, prices hold or climb
when competition exists at multiple layers of the supply chain, players competing downstream are also bidding against each other for the same inputs upstream (hypergamy joke in here somewhere). more downstream competition can actually amplify upstream scarcity, pushing input prices higher even as production (IO) becomes more efficient
on fungibility, adding more competitors doesn't always create pricing pressure. regulatory moat, uptime, quantizing, etc.
what truly matters is:
effective competition at the margin > # of players
lower IO costs can unlock new sources of demand (agentic loops, hello), and if that demand expands faster than real supply, market can still get tighter
you can have falling unit costs, growing demand, rising input prices, and stable or increasing output prices at the same time. none of that is contradictory. the marginal buyer doesn't care what your IO costs are (I certainly don't, and neither does Jane Street)
competition creates pressure on economic rents, but it doesn't guarantee falling prices. that depends on supply elasticity, demand growth, fungibility, etc
I think people conflate tendency with law. the margins imply there's incentive for supply to change, not that it will respond quickly enough to bring prices down