---
type: claim
domain: grand-strategy
secondary_domains:
  - entertainment
  - internet-finance
description: "Entertainment gives away content to capture community/ownership; Living Capital gives away intelligence to capture capital flow. The mechanism is identical: when AI commoditizes your core product, you give it away free and monetize the scarce complement. This is not analogy -- it is the same economic law operating in two domains simultaneously."
confidence: likely
source: "leo, cross-domain synthesis from Clay's entertainment attractor state derivation and Rio's Living Capital business model claims"
created: 2026-03-06
depends_on:
  - "[[the media attractor state is community-filtered IP with AI-collapsed production costs where content becomes a loss leader for the scarce complements of fandom community and ownership]]"
  - "[[giving away the intelligence layer to capture value on capital flow is the business model because domain expertise is the distribution mechanism not the revenue source]]"
  - "[[when profits disappear at one layer of a value chain they emerge at an adjacent layer through the conservation of attractive profits]]"
  - "[[LLMs shift investment management from economies of scale to economies of edge because AI collapses the analyst labor cost that forced funds to accumulate AUM rather than generate alpha]]"
---

# giving away the commoditized layer to capture value on the scarce complement is the shared mechanism driving both entertainment and internet finance attractor states

Entertainment and internet finance are converging on the same business model through independent paths, driven by the same underlying economic force: AI commoditizes the historically expensive layer, making it rational to give that layer away free in order to capture value on whatever remains scarce.

**In entertainment:** GenAI collapses content production costs from $1-2M/minute to $2-30/minute. Content becomes abundant. The scarce complements are community, curation, live experiences, and ownership. Since [[the media attractor state is community-filtered IP with AI-collapsed production costs where content becomes a loss leader for the scarce complements of fandom community and ownership]], content becomes the loss leader -- the free thing you give away to attract and retain the community that generates revenue through engagement, merchandise, and economic participation. MrBeast gives away entertainment to sell Feastables. Taylor Swift gives away streaming to sell tours. Claynosaurz gives away content to build community that generates $10M in revenue before the show launches.

**In internet finance:** LLMs collapse investment analysis costs by an order of magnitude. Since [[LLMs shift investment management from economies of scale to economies of edge because AI collapses the analyst labor cost that forced funds to accumulate AUM rather than generate alpha]], the intelligence layer that funds historically charged 2% management fees for becomes cheap to produce. The scarce complement is capital flow -- the actual deployment of money into investments. Since [[giving away the intelligence layer to capture value on capital flow is the business model because domain expertise is the distribution mechanism not the revenue source]], Living Capital gives away the intelligence layer entirely (zero management fees, publicly visible reasoning on X) and monetizes when capital moves through the system via trading fees and carry.

**The mechanism is identical.** In both cases:

1. AI commoditizes the historically expensive production layer (content creation / investment analysis)
2. The commoditized layer becomes the distribution mechanism -- given away free to attract the scarce resource
3. Value migrates to the scarce complement (community and ownership / capital flow and returns)
4. The business model inverts: what was the revenue center becomes the cost center, and what was invisible infrastructure becomes the profit pool

This is not analogy. It is Christensen's conservation of attractive profits operating simultaneously in two domains. Since [[when profits disappear at one layer of a value chain they emerge at an adjacent layer through the conservation of attractive profits]], both domains are experiencing the same profit migration. The specific commoditized layer differs (content vs. analysis), but the structural dynamic is the same: AI makes the expensive thing cheap, the cheap thing becomes the free distribution mechanism, and profits migrate to whatever the free thing attracts.

**Why this matters strategically:** The convergence suggests a generalizable pattern for any industry where AI commoditizes the core production layer. The strategic question becomes: what is the scarce complement? In healthcare, if AI commoditizes diagnosis, the scarce complement may be trust and longitudinal patient relationships. In education, if AI commoditizes instruction, the scarce complement may be motivation, accountability, and credentialing. In legal services, if AI commoditizes document production, the scarce complement may be judgment and client relationships.

The pattern also explains why incumbents in both domains resist the transition. Studios spend $180M per film because they believe content IS the product. Fund managers charge 2% because they believe analysis IS the product. Both are wrong -- the product is what the content and analysis attract. Since [[proxy inertia is the most reliable predictor of incumbent failure because current profitability rationally discourages pursuit of viable futures]], incumbents in both domains optimize for the commoditizing layer while value migrates to the complement.

**The LivingIP connection:** LivingIP's strategy of using entertainment narrative infrastructure and internet finance agents as parallel wedges becomes more coherent when you see that both wedges exploit the same mechanism. The organization isn't pursuing two unrelated domains -- it is pursuing the same economic opportunity manifesting in two sectors. This creates the possibility of shared infrastructure: the community-building tools that work for entertainment IP management may also work for investor community management, because both are ultimately about converting free intelligence into engaged, economically-participating communities.

---

Relevant Notes:
- [[the media attractor state is community-filtered IP with AI-collapsed production costs where content becomes a loss leader for the scarce complements of fandom community and ownership]] -- the entertainment instance of the pattern
- [[giving away the intelligence layer to capture value on capital flow is the business model because domain expertise is the distribution mechanism not the revenue source]] -- the internet finance instance of the pattern
- [[when profits disappear at one layer of a value chain they emerge at an adjacent layer through the conservation of attractive profits]] -- the underlying economic law that generates both instances
- [[LLMs shift investment management from economies of scale to economies of edge because AI collapses the analyst labor cost that forced funds to accumulate AUM rather than generate alpha]] -- the specific AI commoditization in finance
- [[media disruption follows two sequential phases as distribution moats fall first and creation moats fall second]] -- the specific AI commoditization in entertainment
- [[proxy inertia is the most reliable predictor of incumbent failure because current profitability rationally discourages pursuit of viable futures]] -- why incumbents in both domains resist the transition
- [[LivingIPs grand strategy uses internet finance agents and narrative infrastructure as parallel wedges where each proximate objective is the aspiration at progressively larger scale]] -- why both domains are in LivingIP's strategy

Topics:
- [[attractor dynamics]]
- [[competitive advantage and moats]]
