The Subsidy War Has No Natural Floor

The month opened with a coding race and closed with a token leaderboard, and both stories are the same story: the labs are subsidizing consumption at a rate that no pricing model has caught up to. Week one made the mechanism visible. $200 plans delivering $1,000-plus of compute, security products given away to buy enterprise platform position, acquisition deals slowed by partner friction at exactly the moment speed mattered. Week three confirmed where that logic terminates: a Figma user running up $70K through a $20 account, Anthropic subsidizing at roughly 5x, and leaderboards gamifying consumption volume as if volume were the point. The BCG cognitive load data from week one adds a structural wrinkle the pricing teams aren't modeling: if heavier AI usage produces measurable fatigue and diminishing returns, the utilization rate assumptions inside every flat-rate SaaS margin projection are quietly wrong. That connects to the moat analysis in week two. The companies holding pricing power aren't the ones offering the most compute per dollar; they're the ones where switching carries real operational cost. Every SaaS platform running flat-rate AI access is accumulating a liability the income statement won't show until a cohort churns or a usage spike arrives simultaneously.