[Barathkanna]

That’s fair, and I probably didn’t explain it clearly. We’re building an AI API as a service platform aimed at early developers and small teams who want to integrate AI without constantly thinking about tokens at all.

I agree that token economics are basically a commodity today. The problem we’re trying to address isn’t beating the market on raw token prices, but removing the mental and financial overhead of having to model usage, estimate burn, and worry about runaway costs while experimenting or shipping early features. In that sense it’s absolutely an engineering and finance problem combined, and we’re intentionally tackling it at the pricing and API layer rather than pretending the underlying models are unique.

[iamrobertismo]

Would you just be... subsidizing low volume users? I am saying this isn't like a new problem in the grand scheme of things. hopefully I am not being too negative, do you have a site or something to learn more? It's not clear how you can have better token economics to provide me or someone else better token economics, rather than just burning more money lol.

[Barathkanna]

Totally fair question, and you’re not being negative.

We’re not claiming better token economics in the sense of magically cheaper tokens, and we’re not just burning money to subsidize usage indefinitely. You’re right that this isn’t a new problem.

What we’re building is an AI API platform aimed at early developers and small teams who want to integrate AI without constantly reasoning about token math while they’re still experimenting or shipping early features. The value we’re trying to provide is predictability and simplicity, not beating the market on raw token prices. Some amount of cross-subsidy at low volumes is intentional and bounded, because lowering that early friction is the point.

If you want to see what we mean, the site is here: https://oxlo.ai Happy to answer questions or go deeper on how we’re thinking about this.