🤝 Strategic Partnership Announcement GAEA is pleased to announce a strategic partnership with @itplaysout. By combining GAEA’s AI-native infrastructure with PlaysOut’s gaming ecosystem, this collaboration aims to drive innovation across AI, interactive entertainment, and on-chain experiences, delivering greater value to both developers and users. More updates coming soon. 🌍✨ #GAEA# #PlaysOut##AI#

Anthropic just lost its bid to pause the government's supply chain designation while the legal fight plays out. A 3-judge DC Circuit panel (one level below SCOTUS) ruled the "equitable balance cuts in favor of the government." To win a stay, you need to show (1) you're likely to win the underlying case and (2) you'll suffer irreparable harm beyond just money. The court shot down both — and used Dario's own words against him on the irreparable harm question. The panel of judges they drew couldn't have been better for the Administration if they'd picked themselves. So what's next? Anthropic could push for full en banc review — all 11 DC Circuit judges weighing in. But given the expedited briefing schedule set for May, it's hard to see the full court stepping in before the 3-judge panel rules on the merits which I expect could come in June. TLDR – at a minimum Anthropic’s relationship with the DoW will likely remain in limbo for another two months, unless the parties settle sooner.

As agents become the biggest users of software, then all software has to be available in a headless fashion. Agents won’t be using your UI, they’ll be talking to your APIs. So the question becomes what is the business model of software and this headless approach in the future? Here are a few thoughts on how everything plays out based on what we’re seeing and doing at Box, but also conversation with other platforms. 1) Seats don’t go away for *people*. Seats are still a convenient and efficient way to have a customer use technology predictably for a set of users within a baseline set of usage. The key, though, is that when the customer pays for a seat, it has to come with a set of usage of APIs on behalf of that user that the agent can use on their behalf. The user will need to be able to interact with their data and the underlying tool via any agent they work with, and an embedded amount of usage will come with the seat. I would imagine most software -Box included- will enable seats to work with their data at a relatively high volume via systems like ChatGPT, Codex, Claude, Gemini, Cursor, Copilot, Perplexity, Factory, Cogniton, et al. quite seamlessly. If you don’t do this, you’re DOA. 2) Agents may have “seats” if they are doing stateful work in the system, but they will be priced very differently than people. Seats (or the equivalent) can make sense when you have an agent that has its own workspace, stores its own data, needs a different set of permissions compared to the user, and so on. If a company wants this agent to be around for long period of time, that may very well look like another “user” in the system. Openclaw-style agents highlight what this future could look like. The only issue on pricing here is that one customer could decide to do all their work in 1 agent, and another might split it into 1,000 agents. So pricing like a human seat is nearly impossible and impractical; each company will have a different approach for this as it gets tricky perfectly trying to capture all the value within an agent seat. 3) The dominant pricing for headless use that goes above the seat allotment, or when an agent is firmly acting on their own, will be a consumption model. Many enterprises software platforms have previously operated like this with PaaS options, and agents will look like another machine user of their system. In some cases the APIs might get priced just as they did previously, but in other cases there may need to be new types of APIs that represent the work an agent would do in one go -more akin to an outcome- instead of a series of API calls. This is especially germane when the headless software also has an agentic use-case embedded within in, such as orchestrating the process within their own system via AI. Overall the growth of this usage pattern is effectively unbounded as the use-cases for agents operating on data in these systems will dramatically exceed what people do with their data and tools today. Every platform that goes headless (which will be anyone that wants to take advantage of agents) will need to adopt a model like this. Some may fight it initially but it’s an inevitably as there will always be more and more agents outside your platform than people. Overall, there’s a lot of really interesting changes left to come in software due to headless use of these systems. Early days.

don’t think many ct folks understand what MoUs are actually for they’re not just random “let’s collab” x dms lol usually they mean both sides are doing due diligence to actually build something together and its surprising how quickly 3 global financial players signed MoUs with ADI chain all just days after mainnet launched on dec 9 > blackrock signed mou + mastercard partnership confirmed > franklin templeton signed mou on went through some docs and looks like they’re exploring: tokenized assets, regulated settlement rails and compliant digital products on adi chain and $adi is gonna be the gas token for all of this gonna share more once my partners at @adi_foundation announce more about it excited to see how this plays out