Let me put a sentence here:
GAIB is one of the few projects that I need to 'slow down and read the materials' recently.
Not because it is complicated, but because too many people are used to viewing it with misaligned expectations.
If you come in with the mindset of 'AI hotspots', 'crypto alpha', and 'the next explosion', then I can tell you in advance:
Most likely, you will find it boring, even feel that it 'doesn't look like a project'.
But if you are willing to regard it as a financial structure that is being pieced together, things start to become interesting.
Kite is not the main character in this matter, but it determines whether this structure resembles the real world.
One, GAIB is actually avoiding the best story to tell.
If you look closely at GAIB's public materials, you will find an abnormal point:
It hardly discusses what future AI can change.
This is really counterintuitive in 2025.
AI, robots, computing power, agents... which one doesn't come with traffic?
But GAIB deliberately avoids these.
The reason is not complicated:
What it needs to solve is not 'Will AI succeed?',
But it's 'How should money stay inside after AI has already succeeded?'.
These are two completely different questions.
The former is suitable for storytelling,
The latter is only suitable for accounting.
Two, the essence of the problem: computing power has been industrialized, but finance has not been upgraded in sync.
The current AI infrastructure has a severely underestimated feature:
It is already very close to traditional basic industries.
Look at its attributes:
Heavy input.
Depreciation is clear.
Long operating cycles.
The yield curve is smooth.
Strong dependency on continuous demand.
This is completely different from 'internet applications'.
Instead, it's more like electricity, communication, transportation.
The problem arises—
In the past twenty years, we have almost not prepared suitable financial expressions for 'AI-level infrastructure'.
Traditional finance is too slow.
On-chain finance is too emotional.
GAIB is stuck in this gap.
Three, GAIB's methodology: don't get too excited, first delineate the boundaries.
I value one choice of GAIB very much:
It doesn't first ask 'Can this make money on-chain?', but first asks:
Are assets independent of tokens?
Can yield break free from market fluctuations to self-cycle?
Can the rights and responsibilities be audited and explained?
If any of these three questions cannot be answered, RWA will become mere packaging.
The AI infrastructure chosen by GAIB is not a 'computing power concept',
but an entity system that is already in use, already charging, already running cash flow.
This step is very important.
because it determines the subsequent AID and sAID; it's not playing with math, but doing mapping.
Four, AID: it is not 'stable', it is 'recognized'.
Let me put it another way to talk about AID.
The key of AID is not in the peg,
And it's about—who will care whether its peg is trustworthy.
It chooses U.S. Treasury bonds and highly liquid stable assets as the underlying, which on the surface seems conservative,
But in reality, this is a very clear signal:
GAIB's target users have never been emotional players.
AID is more like a 'default currency unit'.
Allowing AI infrastructure to be split, priced, and combined in ways familiar to the financial world on-chain.
In other words:
AID serves not the desire for trading, but the accessibility of assets.
Five, sAID: there is no 'temptation design' here.
Many on-chain projects will crazily stack sugar at the 'staking' level.
GAIB hasn't.
The logic of sAID is almost cold to the point of boredom:
Interest generated from government bonds.
The real income generated by AI infrastructure.
Clear profit distribution relationships.
No extra subsidies,
There is no illusion of 'covering risks through growth'.
The result is:
It naturally discourages some people.
but conversely, it also filters out the types of funds that truly fit this structure—
Those willing to exchange time for certainty.
In the current on-chain environment, this is extremely scarce.
Six, the position of DeFi in the GAIB system has been deliberately lowered.
I want to talk about this point separately.
GAIB's usage of DeFi is very unlike a 'Web3 project'.
It doesn't create a sense of profit.
Responsible for only three things:
Providing liquidity outlets.
Reducing entry and exit friction.
Improving fund efficiency.
Where does value come from?
Sorry, not in DeFi.
Value always comes from the operation of that set of off-chain AI infrastructure.
This design makes it difficult for GAIB to cater to hot topics.
But for the risk structure, it's a plus.
Seven, the role of Kite here is not to 'carry', but to 'bring back to reality'.
If you only look at GAIB, you might think it's a rational but abstract model.
The significance of Kite is to bring it back to the operating logic of the real world.
Payments, settlements, clear fund flows, predictable paths—
These are often overlooked in the crypto world.
But it's the lifeline of heavy asset finance.
GAIB on Kite feels more like:
Connecting a new type of asset module to a financial channel more aligned with the real world.
It's not for the excitement,
But for sustainability.
Eight, the least 'crypto' aspect of this structure is actually this point.
GAIB has almost not given you a reason to 'have to participate now'.
It does not create a sense of urgency.
Don't expand profit margins.
do not rely on emotions to drive.
This is a very dangerous choice in the crypto world.
But in the history of finance, it is actually the norm.
Because the assets that truly need long-term allocation,
It will never rely on emotions to complete distribution.
The last paragraph, no summary.
I don't think GAIB will satisfy everyone.
It is also not suitable to be frequently interpreted.
But if you extend your perspective a bit,
You will find it doing something very few are willing to do:
Preparing financial forms in advance for AI's 'infrastructure stage'.
This thing is not cool.
Not fast,
It's also not easy to remember.
But as more and more funds begin to ask:
'How should I hold AI?'
It will probably be brought up again.
