The Market Has No New Stories, The Current AI Frenzy Reminds Me of NFTs

marsbitPublished on 2026-02-10Last updated on 2026-02-10

Abstract

The author draws parallels between the current AI hype, driven by releases like OpenClaw and Claude Code, and the NFT mania of 2021. While acknowledging the genuine utility and transformative potential of AI, the article critiques how social media amplifies extreme narratives, creating a distorted perception of reality where hype often overshadows substance. This echo chamber confuses performance with consensus and consensus with truth, leading to overblown expectations. The piece highlights a similar overreaction in financial markets, where a narrative that "AI will kill software" triggered a massive, indiscriminate sell-off in software stocks, erasing billions in market value. Companies with strong fundamentals, like Salesforce and ServiceNow—which are successfully integrating and monetizing AI—were sold off alongside more vulnerable firms. The author argues that this panic, like the hype, is a premature attempt to price in a distant "endgame," ignoring the gradual, complex reality of technological adoption. The conclusion urges a more nuanced view that tolerates ambiguity rather than rushing to extreme conclusions.

Author:market participant

Compiled by: Deep Tide TechFlow

Deep Tide Guide: When the new wave of AI agent frenzy triggered by OpenClaw and Claude Code swept through social media, the author keenly sensed a madness reminiscent of the NFT era in 2021.

This article analyzes how social media amplifies technological narratives, how Wall Street engages in indiscriminate selling due to the bias that "AI is killing software," and why giants like Salesforce and ServiceNow were mistakenly punished by the market even after delivering astonishing results.

The author believes we are in the "mid-game" of a great revolution, where extreme optimism and extreme panic are attempts to prematurely透支 (draw on) an endgame that has not yet arrived.

Full Text Below:

This wave of OpenClaw and Claude Code frenzy reminds me of the hysteria of the NFT era.

The emergence of new technology is accompanied by practicality and simultaneously generates cultural and narrative resonance in the zeitgeist. Like every technology that captures the collective imagination at the right moment, it is being processed by the same "distortion machine"—the very machine that once turned JPEG pictures of monkeys into a $40 billion asset class.

The pattern is identical: genuine innovation arrives, early adopters discover real value. Subsequently, the social layer takes over everything—suddenly, the conversation detaches from the technology itself and becomes a performance about "taking sides."

Declaring "This is the future" becomes a badge of the in-crowd. Writing guides, think pieces, and exaggerating the current state's value earns social validation. The compound growth of opinions outpaces the technology itself.

(I promise there will be a point about financial markets later).

The Cognitive Distortion Machine

X (Twitter) makes it worse. Social media is increasingly seen as a legitimate lens on reality, yet it bends the image of truth.

The loudest voices are not representative—they are performing "strong belief" for an audience that rewards such behavior. Every major platform runs on engagement, and engagement rewards extremes. "This is interesting and useful" doesn't go viral; "This changes everything, your job is at risk" does.

A hundred retweets saying "This changes everything" are not a signal, but an echo. Echoes are mistaken for consensus, consensus is mistaken for truth, and truth is mistaken for an investable thesis.

Girard would have a field day with this spectacle. When enough people perform "belief" in a certain outcome, the performance itself becomes confused as evidence supporting that outcome. The NFT era proved this conclusively: people didn't want JPEGs, they wanted "to want what everyone else wanted" [1].

What is Real?

The latest model capabilities are astounding—far more impressive than NFTs, which had little practical utility beyond speculation and cultural signaling.

I use these tools daily. They improve my efficiency in concrete, measurable ways. The underlying models are indeed impressive, and the trajectory of improvement is very steep. When I compare what I could do with these tools six months ago versus today, the incremental gain is massive.

Moreover, the broader potential is limitless. AI-assisted programming, research, analysis, writing—these are not hypothetical use cases; they are happening and creating real value for those who use them well.

I don't want to be the person who scorned the internet in 1998. That's not the point; I am very long-term bullish on AI. The point is the timeline, and the chasm between potential and current reality.

What is Not Yet Real

No—Claude will not immediately catalyze social upheaval. This does not mean humans no longer need interfaces to manage work. This does not mean Anthropic has won the AI war.

Think about what the most breathless opinions actually require you to believe: enterprise software—decades of accumulated workflows, integrations, compliance frameworks, and institutional knowledge—will be replaced in quarters, not years? Per-seat billing models die overnight? Companies with over $10 billion in annual revenue and 80% gross margins evaporate because a chatbot can write a function? [2]

Wedbush's Dan Ives put it bluntly: "Enterprises are not going to tear down hundreds of billions of dollars of past software infrastructure investments to migrate to Anthropic, OpenAI, etc." [3]. And Jensen Huang, who has more reason than anyone to tout AI's disruptive power, called the notion of "AI replacing software" "the most illogical thing in the world" [4].

Those most aggressively declaring "Endgame" (thanks @WillManidis for popularizing the term) are often those who benefit the most from your "conviction": follower counts, consulting gigs, subscription fees, conference invites. The incentive structure rewards bold predictions that bear no responsibility for timing.

The Market's Mirror

What's interesting to me: the market is making the same mistake on the other side of the table.

Anthropic released its Claude Cowork plugin on January 30th. In less than a week, $285 billion evaporated from software, financial services, and asset management stocks [5].

The software ETF—$IGV—is down 22% this year, while the S&P 500 is up. 100 out of 110 components are in the red. The RSI hit 16, its lowest reading since September 2001 [6].

Hedge funds are furiously shorting software stocks and adding to positions [7]. The narrative logic is: AI kills SaaS. Every per-seat software company is a "walking dead."

This selling is indiscriminate. Companies with completely different risk profiles regarding AI impact are being treated as the same trade [8]. When 100 out of 110 names in an index are falling, the market is no longer analyzing; it is indulging in narrative euphoria.

Note: A recovery may have begun since I started writing this.

Throwing Out the Bathwater with the Baby

Look at what's actually happening inside the companies supposedly facing extinction.

Salesforce Agentforce revenue grew 330% year-over-year, reaching an annualized run rate of over $500 million, and generated $12.4 billion in free cash flow. Forward P/E is 15x. They just issued a $60 billion revenue target for FY2030 [9]. This is not a company being disrupted by AI—it's a company building the AI enterprise delivery layer.

ServiceNow subscription revenue grew 21%, operating margin expanded to 31%, and authorized a $5 billion stock buyback. Their AI suite, Now Assist, reached $600 million in Annual Contract Value (ACV), targeting over $1 billion by year-end [10]. Yet its stock is down 50% from its highs.

Should these names see valuation multiples moderately derated due to risk? Perhaps. But smart money started pricing this in years ago. As many smarter than me have pointed out: this selloff requires you to simultaneously believe "AI capex is crashing" AND "AI is powerful enough to destroy the entire software industry" [11]. These two things cannot be true at once. Pick one.

Identifying Real Risk

Will some companies be truly displaced? Yes.

Point solutions offering standardized, single workflows are vulnerable. If your entire product is just an interface layer built on non-owned data, you are in trouble. LegalZoom is down 20%—for these types of companies, the concern has substance [12]. When AI plugins can automate contract review and NDA categorization, the value proposition of paying a legacy vendor for the same functionality becomes hard to defend.

But companies with deep integrations, owned data, and platform-level foundations are a different story entirely. Salesforce is deep in the tech stack of every Fortune 500 company. ServiceNow is the system of record for enterprise IT. Datadog's consumption-based model means more AI compute directly translates to more monitoring revenue—their non-AI business growth actually accelerated to 20% YoY [13].

Selling digital infrastructure because "AI kills software" is as absurd as selling construction equipment stocks because buildings are going up.

We've Been Here Before

The 2022 SaaS crash is instructive. The sector fell over 50%. The median forward revenue multiple dropped from 25x to 7x—below pre-pandemic levels [14]. Earnings performance remained strong throughout. The subsequent rebound was dramatic—the Nasdaq was up 43% in 2023. Admittedly, the trigger then was more an interest rate shock than fundamental deterioration.

The January 2025 DeepSeek panic is more recent. Nvidia plummeted on fears that cheap Chinese AI models would make the entire AI infrastructure buildout pointless, but then fully recovered [15]. That fear was structurally identical to today's: a single product release triggered an existential crisis reassessment of an entire industry.

Many observers have drawn direct analogies between the current moment and the early stages of the dot-com bust—tech stocks falling while consumer staples, utilities, and healthcare rise [16]. But one thing about the dot-com bust: Amazon fell 94%, then became one of the world's most important companies. The market tried to price the "endgame" halfway through the game, creating one of history's greatest buying opportunities.

Deutsche Bank's Jim Reid offered a hard truth: "Identifying the long-term winners and losers at this stage is almost pure guesswork." [17]

I bet he's right. And this uncertainty—the admission that we just don't know how it ends—is why this indiscriminate selling is a mistake.

The Endgame Fallacy

The hype merchants on X and the panic sellers on Wall Street are making the same mistake on opposite ends of the board.

One group says AI has already won, the future is here, all institutions and job functions are to be rewritten from now on. The other group says AI has killed software, subscription revenue is dead, $10 billion in free cash flow doesn't matter because the business model is obsolete.

Both are jumping to the "endgame" while the game still has many moves left. The chasm between our current state and the technological vision will be filled by messy, incremental, company-specific progress. Some software companies will integrate AI and become stronger; a few will actually be displaced; most will adapt—and this process of adaptation is slow, uneven, and not tweetable.

The actual trajectory is more volatile and less certain than either the hype or the panic suggests. Those who will do well from here will be those who can tolerate this ambiguity, not those rushing to grasp a prematurely conclusive narrative.

Great operators always find a way.

Reference Sources

[1] Girard's Mimetic Desire Theory (https://www.iep.utm.edu/girard/)

[2] Fortune: Why SaaS Stocks Are Irrationally Slumping Like During the DeepSeek Panic

[3] CNBC: Impact of AI Tools on SaaS Software Stocks

[4] CNBC: Jensen Huang Says AI Replacing Software is "The Most Illogical Thing"

[5] Yahoo Finance: US Software Sector Loses $285 Billion on Anthropic Impact

[6] Yahoo Finance: IGV ETF Trend Analysis

[7] Axios: Hedge Funds Heavily Shorting Software Sector

[8] Benzinga: Misreading in the Software Sector Crash

[9] Salesforce Investor Relations: Record Q3 Earnings Driven by Agentforce

[10] Futurum Group: ServiceNow Q4 Earnings and AI Platform Momentum [11] Fortune: The AI Paradox and Irrational Analysis

[12] CNBC: Software Stocks Enter Bear Market, ServiceNow et al. Plunge

[13] StockAnalysis: Datadog Operating Stats

[14] Meritech Capital: Review of the 2022 SaaS Crash

[15] CNBC: Nvidia Plunges on DeepSeek Concerns

[16] Fortune: Deutsche Bank on Software Bubble and Internet Era Analogy

[17] Deutsche Bank Jim Reid Analysis Report

Related Questions

QWhat does the author compare the current AI hype to, and why?

AThe author compares the current AI hype to the NFT era because both involve genuine technological innovation that gets amplified by social media into a cultural and narrative frenzy, leading to extreme optimism and speculative behavior detached from actual utility and timelines.

QAccording to the author, how does social media distort the perception of AI technology?

ASocial media distorts perception by rewarding extreme, high-engagement content that perform 'conviction,' turning echoes into false consensus, and conflating performance of belief with evidence, ultimately bending reality to fit viral narratives.

QWhat is the 'Endgame Fallacy' as described in the article?

AThe 'Endgame Fallacy' refers to the mistake of prematurely declaring a final outcome—either extreme optimism about AI's immediate impact or extreme pessimism about software's obsolescence—when the actual trajectory is uncertain, gradual, and company-specific, with much of the game still left to play.

QWhy does the author believe the market's sell-off in software stocks is misguided?

AThe sell-off is misguided because it is indiscriminate, failing to distinguish between companies vulnerable to AI disruption (e.g., point solutions) and those with deep integrations, proprietary data, and platform strengths (e.g., Salesforce, ServiceNow) that are actually leveraging AI to grow and generate substantial cash flow.

QWhat historical market events does the author cite to contextualize the current AI-driven software sell-off?

AThe author cites the 2022 SaaS crash (driven by rate hikes, not fundamentals) and the January 2025 DeepSeek panic (where Nvidia fell on fears of cheap Chinese AI models) as examples of similar overreactions, noting that markets often misprice mid-game uncertainty, creating buying opportunities.

Related Reads

The Value Distribution of Stablecoins

**Summary: The Value Distribution of Stablecoins** The article argues that stablecoins are evolving from mere trading tools into broader channels for dollar access. It divides the stablecoin ecosystem into four layers to analyze how value is distributed: 1. **Issuance Layer:** Mints stablecoins, holds reserve assets, and captures the spread between reserve yield and user costs (e.g., Tether, Circle). This layer currently earns the largest profit margin. 2. **Infrastructure Layer:** Connects stablecoins to the traditional financial system, handling fiat on/off-ramps, banking integration, compliance (KYC/AML), and asset management (e.g., Bridge, BVNK). This is the "unglamorous" but critical work, building the essential bridges between crypto and real-world finance. 3. **Acquiring/Distribution Layer:** Integrates stablecoins into merchant systems, manages payment flows, and provides enterprise financial software (e.g., Stripe, Coinbase). They act as the access point for businesses. 4. **Application Layer:** The end-users and businesses that ultimately use stablecoins for payments, settlements, or as a store of value. They benefit from convenience but have little pricing power. The core thesis is that while the issuance layer currently dominates profits, the often-overlooked **infrastructure layer holds significant long-term potential**. The real challenge and barrier to mass adoption is not the on-chain transfer of stablecoins (which is simple), but the complex "last mile" integration into existing business workflows, banking systems, and regulatory frameworks across different countries. Companies in this layer are currently in a "land grab" phase, investing heavily to build networks, secure bank partnerships, and establish compliance pathways. While their position is currently pressured by the profitable issuers above and distribution platforms below, the article suggests that if stablecoins become a default financial rail for businesses, the infrastructure providers who have done the hard work of integration will ultimately gain strong pricing power and become entrenched, essential players.

marsbit4h ago

The Value Distribution of Stablecoins

marsbit4h ago

The Value Distribution of Stablecoins

The Value Distribution of Stablecoins The article argues that stablecoins are evolving from a mere trading tool into a broad "dollar channel." It analyzes the industry's value chain through four layers: 1. **Issuance Layer (e.g., Tether, Circle):** The top layer that mints stablecoins, holds reserve assets, and captures the thickest interest rate spread. 2. **Infrastructure Layer (e.g., Bridge, BVNK):** Connects stablecoins to the traditional financial system, handling critical but complex "dirty work" like fiat on/off-ramps, banking integration, compliance (KYC/AML), and cross-border settlement. 3. **Acquiring/Distribution Layer (e.g., Stripe, Coinbase):** Embeds stablecoins into merchant systems, manages payment flows, and integrates with enterprise software. 4. **Application Layer:** End-users and businesses that ultimately use stablecoins for payments, settlement, or storing value. The author posits that while the issuance layer currently captures the most profit, the most overlooked and potentially critical layer is infrastructure. The core challenge for stablecoin adoption isn't the on-chain transfer (which is simple), but bridging the gap between blockchain and the real-world financial system. This involves solving practical problems for businesses: fiat conversion, reconciliation, tax handling, and user onboarding. Infrastructure companies are currently in a difficult "land-grab" phase—building networks, securing banking relationships, and achieving compliance country-by-country. They face pressure from both the profitable issuance layer above and distribution platforms below. However, the author suggests this layer is building a crucial moat. Once stablecoins become a default business rail, the infrastructure players who have done the hard work of integration may gain significant, durable value and pricing power.

链捕手4h ago

The Value Distribution of Stablecoins

链捕手4h ago

Why Is Nvidia Borrowing $20 Billion When It's Not Short of Cash?

Nvidia's recent announcement to issue at least $20 billion in senior notes, despite holding a strong cash position with over $48.6 billion in free cash flow last quarter, is not a sign of financial need. Instead, it represents a strategic move to leverage its high credit rating (recently upgraded to AA by S&P) to secure low-cost, long-term debt. This capital will support long-term AI infrastructure investments, data centers, R&D, supply chain prepayments, and strategic investments, while allowing the company to continue aggressive shareholder returns through stock buybacks and dividends. The decision reflects a mature capital management strategy: using debt to finance long-term growth assets is more efficient and less dilutive to shareholders than equity financing. It signals that Nvidia, like other tech giants (Alphabet, Meta, Amazon), is entering a new phase of heavy AI capital expenditure, shifting from a pure growth story to a story about capital allocation, credit strength, and long-term ecosystem positioning. The key question for investors is whether Nvidia can maintain its high cash flow generation and ensure that returns from these AI investments justify the cost of capital over the long term. The bond issuance amplifies its expansion capabilities but also ties its valuation more closely to the broader AI investment cycle's sustainability and profitability.

marsbit4h ago

Why Is Nvidia Borrowing $20 Billion When It's Not Short of Cash?

marsbit4h ago

Liberland Fires Tech Secretary After Alleged Blockchain And Website Takeover Attempt

Liberland's congress has voted to remove Technology Secretary Dorian Stern Vukotić, following a resolution accusing him of attempting to hijack the Liberland.org domain, removing administrative multisig protections, blocking the president from voting, and launching unauthorized tokens. The incident serves as a case study in blockchain governance, highlighting risks that go beyond smart contracts to include control over domains, admin keys, and off-chain authority. For the crypto industry, it underscores the need to scrutinize decentralization claims against operational realities, where a small group can still compromise governance. The story reflects a broader market shift where infrastructure security and governance are becoming as critical as price action. Editorial framing should treat the development as a verified information signal about governance risks, avoiding overstatement of Liberland's legal status and leaving room for follow-up evidence.

bitcoinist5h ago

Liberland Fires Tech Secretary After Alleged Blockchain And Website Takeover Attempt

bitcoinist5h ago

How to Do Research Well: Deliberately Practice the Real Skills That Matter

No one truly teaches you how to do research. You're often given a desk, a pre-selected problem, and vague instructions to "create something new." Consequently, many people reverse-engineer the job based on visible outputs—papers, posts, announcements—learning only how to *appear* like a researcher rather than how to *become* one. True research capability is built from stacking small, trainable skills, nearly all of which can be developed through deliberate practice. **Pick Your Own Problem:** Most researchers absorb problems from advisors or trends, lacking the underlying reasoning. Choosing a problem you genuinely care about, as John Schulman advises, leads to original work. Develop "taste" like a muscle: predict experiment outcomes, guess paper results from methods, and track which findings remain important over time. **Upgrade Your Inputs:** Relying on shared reading lists (arXiv hot lists, filtered group chats) leads to unoriginal conclusions. Undervalued old literature often holds crucial insights (e.g., MoE, LSTM, backpropagation). Richard Sutton's "The Bitter Lesson" or Claude Shannon's 1952 talk on creative thinking are more predictive than lengthy modern surveys. Breadth matters as much as depth: draw from neuroscience, mechanism design, hardware knowledge, and honest statistics. Read papers directly, especially appendices and limitations sections. **Write Everything Down:** As Paul Graham noted, writing exposes flaws in seemingly mature ideas. Writing is the cheapest defense against self-deception. Following Feynman's principle, Darwin programmatically wrote down facts contradicting his theory to combat memory bias. Maintain a detailed log of hypotheses, setups, predictions, results, and updated understandings. Reviewing past logs fosters essential humility.

marsbit6h ago

How to Do Research Well: Deliberately Practice the Real Skills That Matter

marsbit6h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of AI (AI) are presented below.

活动图片

Top Questions