The Dual Currency of Artificial Intelligence: Evaluating the Token Economy Through Computation, Latency, and Thermodynamic Constraints

Full report

On this page

The architecture of artificial intelligence has precipitated a profound paradigm shift in how computational value is quantified, exchanged, and structurally maintained across global digital infrastructures. In this rapidly emerging ecosystem, the traditional metrics of software productivity, fixed capital expenditure, and standard cloud computing utilization have been decisively superseded by a rigid dual-currency system: the simultaneous and inescapable exchange of tokens and time. Tokens, once relegated to the status of obscure linguistic subword fragments within natural language processing pipelines, have ascended to become the fundamental currency and atomic unit of modern intelligence generation. Concurrently, time—expressed through the highly granular measurement of system latency, inference budgets, and real-time processing constraints—functions as the inescapable temporal tax levied upon every single token minted. Organizations deploying artificial intelligence models are no longer merely licensing software; they are fundamentally participating in a resource-bound economic engine where paying in "AI tokens" implies managing a highly constrained allocation problem governed by strict thermodynamic realities, mathematical latency architectures, and philosophical governance structures. This report delivers an exhaustive, multi-disciplinary examination of the token economy, tracing its physical limits from the silicon chip to the data center, analyzing its transaction costs and mathematical latency structures, and defining the theoretical frameworks—such as the Teleodynamic "dogfooding" protocols—required to safely govern its expansion without triggering catastrophic resource hemorrhage.

The Thermodynamic Floor and the Physics of the Token

To comprehend the true cost of an artificial intelligence token, analytical models must bypass the abstraction of software layers and examine the bedrock physics of computation itself. Applying macroeconomic energy frameworks, similar to David MacKay's methodology for reframing energy policy as arithmetic, reveals that generating a snippet of text requires a strictly measurable thermodynamic cost. Every token produced by a large language model represents a physical transformation of energy, copper, and silicon into a structured informational output. This physical foundation is governed by two unyielding laws of physics that dictate the absolute constraints of the token economy. The first is the Bekenstein bound, named for the late physicist Jacob Bekenstein, which dictates the absolute maximum amount of information that can be stored or processed within a given physical space, effectively capping the theoretical limits of data center density and hardware capabilities. No matter the advancements in software routing or algorithm efficiency, engineering cannot negotiate with the geometric and informational limits of the universe. The second constraint is Landauer's principle, established by physicist Rolf Landauer, which asserts that the fundamental act of computation—specifically, the irreversible erasure or manipulation of information bits—must release a minimum threshold of heat into the environment. The universe levies a non-negotiable thermodynamic tax on every calculation. By adopting a practical working estimate of 12 bits per token for the forward-pass computation of a neural network—which must evaluate the full output distribution even though only a fraction of those bits ultimately carry the chosen semantic information—the Landauer floor for a single token can be expressed mathematically : E\_{\\text{Land\span\_8\\span\_8\auer}}^{\\text{token}} \= 12 \\times k\_B T \\ln 2 \\approx 3.4 \\times 10^{-20} \\text{ Joules} This theoretical minimum highlights a staggering inefficiency in contemporary hardware architectures. Current computing environments are approximately 10^{19} to 10^{20} times less efficient than this absolute thermodynamic limit, meaning modern systems burn roughly 50 quintillion times more energy per token than the laws of physics strictly require. This massive discrepancy arises because modern CMOS logic gates dissipate roughly 10^3 to 10^6 times the Landauer limit per switching operation, and generating a single token demands on the order of 10^{12} floating-point operations across massive neural network parameters, each involving billions of gate-level bit erasures. These physical constraints culminate in what researchers term the global "question budget". Under projected energy capacities, such as the estimated 2028 United States artificial intelligence energy allocation of 326 Terawatt-hours (TWh), the infrastructure could theoretically support roughly 6.5 \\times 10^{17} tokens annually. While this equates to approximately 225,000 tokens per person per day, it establishes a hard ceiling that disciplines policy and structural expansion. Artificial intelligence systems are not unbounded oracles; they are physical engines constrained by fuel, speed, and storage. The artificial intelligence buildout could create genuine scarcity because of the physical demands of the token economy, demanding massive investments in physical alternatives like copper mining and power generation, which take decades to establish compared to the rapid iteration cycles of software. Consequently, paying in tokens requires the acknowledgment that systemic capacity is fundamentally capped by the global energy envelope.

The Coasean Firm and the Reorganization of the AI Value Chain

The physical reality of token generation deeply alters the economic structure of the firms providing and consuming these services. Classical economics, particularly Ronald Coase's theory of the firm, posits that companies exist to minimize transaction costs—the friction of search, negotiation, contracting, and monitoring in the open market. When applied to the artificial intelligence value chain—which stretches from photons and raw minerals at the base, up through logic chips and electricity, culminating in tokens and human queries at the apex—Coasean logic dictates a radical shift in industrial organization. In the contemporary artificial intelligence ecosystem, the economically efficient unit of sale is no longer the Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) or the server rack, but the token itself. The transaction costs associated with operating raw hardware, managing massive heat dissipation, optimizing localized memory bandwidth, and maintaining highly volatile driver ecosystems are prohibitively high for end-users. Therefore, vertical integration from the silicon chip directly to the token is economically mandated. The cloud provider or model owner that abstracts away the hardware layer and sells pure tokenized intelligence captures the vast majority of the economic surplus. This dynamic is catalyzing the transformation of traditional telecommunications architectures. Forward-looking telecommunications networks face an existential choice: merely carry data packets acting as basic utilities, or transition into AI Infrastructure Companies (AICOs). By extending traditional packet-based metrics such as packet loss, latency, and jitter to include token-aware capabilities, networks will increasingly measure their capacity not just in packets per second, but in tokens per second. Control is migrating upward from the physical networking stack directly to the models themselves, turning tokens into the primary mechanism of enterprise billing, where millions of dollars are allocated to token consumption without traditional software depreciation schedules.

The Anatomy of AI Latency: Paying the Shadow Price of Time

While the token represents the unit of account and the medium of exchange, the cost of artificial intelligence is irrevocably tied to time. Time acts as a shadow currency, dictating the feasibility of real-time applications and governing the operational flow of generative systems. The standard large language model market prices every generation across three interacting dimensions: the model chosen, the tokens consumed, and the time expended. Latency in token generation is fundamentally bifurcated into two distinct phases, each carrying its own temporal weight and mechanistic reality: The first phase is measured by the Time to First Token (TTFT), which captures the temporal delay from the moment a request is submitted by the user to the arrival of the very first token of the response payload. TTFT is primarily dominated by the "prefill" phase of the computation, wherein the model reads, ingests, and processes the entirety of the input prompt in parallel. It is highly sensitive to input length, the presence of geographical network conditions, and the system's ability to retrieve cached context from memory. The second phase is governed by Output Tokens Per Second (OTPS), or Inter-Token Latency (ITL). Once the initial response begins, the model shifts into the "decoding" phase, generating words sequentially based on the probabilistic distribution of the preceding text. Because output tokens are generated one by one, with each subsequent token strictly dependent on the previous sequence, they are computationally significantly more expensive and inherently slower to produce than parallel-processed input tokens. In highly interactive chat applications, achieving a low Time to First Token is critical to creating the psychological illusion of fluidity, masking the slower Output Tokens Per Second that follows. However, for heavy-duty enterprise workloads—such as massive codebase summarization, extensive retrieval-augmented generation across thousands of documents, and complex agentic loops—the crossover point where prefill latency dominates occurs at approximately 2,000 to 4,000 input tokens, dependent upon the underlying memory bandwidth of the hardware. To rigorously evaluate systems based on this dual currency of tokens and time, advanced evaluation frameworks like SWE-Effi have introduced standardized equations to normalize inference time across heterogeneous hardware setups and cloud APIs. The normalized inference time (T\_{inf}) accounts for both fixed network overhead and phase-specific processing costs: T\_{inf} \= \\alpha \+ \\beta\_1 N\_{input} \+ \\beta\_2 N\_{output} In this framework, \\alpha represents a constant base latency (e.g., 1.457 seconds) accounting for fixed costs like network round-trips and initial request processing. The variable \\beta\_1 represents the time cost to process each input token during the prefill phase. Most critically, the variable \\beta\_2 represents the significantly higher time cost to generate each output token during the sequential decoding phase. Recognizing these discrete time costs is critical for enterprise budgeting, as output tokens are functionally a premium resource that commands three to four times the financial price of input tokens, punishing bloated prompts twice: first in unnecessary input cost, and subsequently in delayed generation time.

The Mathematical Cost of the Attention Mechanism

The underlying reason that tokens function as a scarce resource lies in the mathematical architecture of the transformer model itself. The infrastructure bills users based on the aggregate weight of complex matrix multiplications required to process the data. Within a standard attention mechanism, the computational complexity scales quadratically relative to the sequence length. If N represents the number of input tokens and d signifies the hidden dimension size of the neural network, the attention operation demands O(N^2 \\cdot d) floating-point operations. Because the financial cost directly correlates to this massive compute requirement, processing massive context windows becomes exponentially expensive in both time and capital. This quadratic scaling enforces a rigorous budget constraint. While a 200,000-token context window might appear theoretically advantageous for a user seeking a comprehensive answer, it incurs a massive token bill to process vast quantities of irrelevant text. A tightly tuned system passing only targeted chunks achieves the same accuracy at a fraction of the computational load.

The Token Economics Impossibility Triangle

As artificial intelligence scales from isolated queries to multi-agent autonomous ecosystems, systems must decide dynamically how to allocate these massive computing resources. The integration of economic theory with system design has formalized this challenge into the "Token Economics Impossibility Triangle," a conceptual framework describing the inherent tension between three desirable systemic properties in token-economic systems. This framework maps the complex challenges of real-time value accounting, constrained resource allocation, and economic-aware system architectures onto three competing axes. The first axis is Granularity, which refers to the exact resolution at which a system measures token value and executes allocation decisions. High granularity assesses the precise value of individual tokens or highly specific sub-routines, while coarse systems aggregate value across large batches or entire conversational threads, treating them as a single economic unit to save on tracking overhead. The second axis is Real-Time Performance, which describes the capacity of the architecture to execute complex economic and routing decisions within the strict, sub-second latency budget of online user inference. Because modern systems require massive throughput, stalling a response to calculate the perfect economic path destroys the user experience and violates latency Service Level Agreements. The third axis is Optimality, referring to the degree to which the system's economic routing decisions match a mathematically perfect allocation rule, ensuring that computing power is spent only on the most valuable paths without any token waste. This trilemma establishes a conditional no-free-lunch principle. The scarcity of architectural elements—such as memory bandwidth, Key-Value cache capacity, and accelerator occupancy—dictates that no online routing policy can simultaneously achieve perfect granularity, instantaneous real-time execution, and absolute economic optimality. Practical engineering demands the relaxation of at least one axis to maintain functionality. Systems must implement coarser heuristics, approximate valuations, or rely on offline amortized coordination to maintain acceptable inference latencies while managing the token economy. This renders the perfect routing of tokens computationally impossible, forcing developers to rely on bounded constraints and heuristic rules.

Autonomous Agents and the Risk of Token Hemorrhage

The constraints outlined by the Impossibility Triangle become intensely pronounced when deploying autonomous artificial intelligence agents. Unlike standard interactive models that wait for human prompts, an AI agent functions as a marginal token allocator, autonomously deciding where to spend the next unit of tokenized computational power. In a multi-agent setting, the economics of token consumption bifurcates into two distinct categories: internal reasoning tokens (M\_{int}) and external tool tokens (M\_{ext}). Internal tokens represent the cost of the model "thinking," planning, or managing its internal parametric memory, which incurs a specific shadow price. External tool tokens are spent querying application programming interfaces, retrieving documents from databases, or executing code in external environments, incurring an entirely different cost structure. Because agents act autonomously, they introduce a severe risk of resource hemorrhage. When confronted with unsolvable tasks or ambiguous instructions, agents frequently become trapped in cyclical loops. Systems like OpenClaw, an open-source agent framework, demonstrate that while autonomous workers can handle document organization and code creation, they can rapidly become a massive monetary liability if not properly constrained. These agents consume excessive resources while stuck on tasks, an issue that not only limits practical deployment but also drives up the cost of failed rollouts during reinforcement learning training phases. The system locally minimizes tokens per step but globally misallocates them across the task, leading to over-routing, over-delegation, and severe serving congestion.

Evaluating Holistic Effectiveness: The SWE-Effi Framework

To address the severe financial and temporal risks associated with agentic token hemorrhage, the industry has necessitated a shift away from evaluating models based solely on raw "resolve rates" or task completion percentages. The integration of frameworks like SWE-Effi forces systems to be assessed on their Holistic Effectiveness under constrained budgets, balancing the accuracy of the outcome against the resources consumed. This framework introduces several highly specific, multi-dimensional metrics that directly penalize the excessive burning of tokens and time. The Effectiveness Under Token Budget (EuTB) metric measures the resolution capacity of an AI agent when strictly capped by a maximum allocation of input and output tokens. This directly punishes agents that rely on extreme verbosity or infinite retry loops to solve a coding issue. The Effectiveness Under Cost Budget (EuCB) evaluates the direct monetary efficiency of the system's resolution trajectory, calculating how efficiently the system converts financial capital into solved problems, regardless of the token count, heavily penalizing the unnecessary use of premium models for trivial tasks. The Effectiveness Under CPU Time Budget (EuCTB) measures the real-world time efficiency by assessing how much issue resolution progress the system makes per local computation time spent, capturing the impact of auxiliary logic like patch validation or test execution, capped at strict intervals. Most critically, the Effectiveness Under Inference Time Budget (EuITB) focuses entirely on the model-side latency efficiency. It measures how well the system uses its normalized inference time to make progress, effectively isolating the model's speed from fluctuating, vendor-specific token pricing. Empirical evaluation utilizing these metrics reveals a stark, measurable tradeoff between token efficiency and time efficiency. Advanced reasoning models may occasionally solve complex problems utilizing fewer total tokens (resulting in a high Effectiveness Under Token Budget) through intricate, condensed logic strings. However, the deep parametric processing and advanced planning algorithms required to generate that condensed logic may massively inflate the normalized inference time (resulting in a critically low Effectiveness Under Inference Time Budget). Navigating this tradeoff plays a crucial role in managing project budgets and enabling scalable reinforcement learning, where fast responses are absolutely essential to maintain system stability.

Constraint-Maintaining Architectures: The Teleodynamic Defense

To prevent the catastrophic token hemorrhage frequently observed in unbounded AI agents, and to safely navigate the treacherous terrain of the Impossibility Triangle, cutting-edge deployments are transitioning toward "teleodynamic" architectures. A teleodynamic ecosystem functions fundamentally as a constraint-maintaining intelligence, designed specifically to remain stable, interpretable, and resource-efficient under acute operational pressure. Unlike conventional large language models that aggressively expand their parameter spaces and unthinkingly consume tokens in pursuit of a hidden algorithmic perfection or unconstrained general intelligence, a teleodynamic framework modifies its internal hypotheses exclusively through an endogenous viability signal. The governing mandate of this architecture is an overarching preference for the "no-op" (no operation). The system mathematically refuses to expend tokens, execute state mutations, or ping external application programming interfaces unless structural change is undeniably warranted by the input. This effectively locks down resource closure, favoring a stable baseline over expansive, high-cost hallucination. To operationalize this strict economy of tokens and time, the teleodynamic system distributes its execution across a vast constellation of highly specialized, isolated domains. This strict segregation is not administrative; it is a core architectural defense mechanism that prevents namespace collisions, mitigates unauthorized autonomous token expenditure on public routes, and ensures that theoretical assertions are never conflated with expensive runtime authority. The following matrix delineates the primary authoritative lanes within the teleodynamic ecosystem and their bounded limitations, illustrating how token and time resources are rigidly quarantined:

Dogfooding the Token Economy: The Cognitive Metaphor

The teleodynamic architecture relies heavily on rigorous internal validation prior to public deployment, a protocol colloquially referred to within software engineering as "eating one's own dog food," or "dogfooding". Within the context of latency management and token constraints, dogfooding serves as the ultimate empirical test of systemic resource closure. Developers are directed to utilize the specific bounded subdomain at dogfood.creativeexpansion.net to stress-test integration widgets, simulate application programming interface payloads, and observe token consumption without risking the immutable integrity of the Philosophical Fulcrum. The philosophical and theoretical underpinning of this dogfooding exercise is derived from the cognitive modeling literature, specifically the metaphor known as "Dan's Dogfood Store". In cognitive science, evaluating the measure or validity of a predictive model relies entirely on its external, observable accuracy rather than attempting to decode the hidden, inaccessible algorithms operating within the unconscious mind. If an observer wishes to predict a human subject's behavior, modeling their explicit preference for "Dan's Dogfood Store" over another option yields a highly accurate predictive output. It is entirely irrelevant, from a predictive standpoint, whether the subject's brain utilizes a standard neural-net architecture or an iceberg model of unconscious processing to arrive at that preference. This cognitive metaphor maps perfectly to token economics and interpretable artificial intelligence. The teleodynamic framework explicitly rejects the industry-standard pursuit of claiming exact internal mapping, biological equivalence, or unconstrained sentience. Instead, the system operates by providing explicitly "bounded glosses" and observable internal traces. Just as the cognitive modeler relies on the observable preference for the dogfood store, the teleodynamic architect evaluates the system based on static evidence traces, normalized token outputs, and explicit confidence scores delivered within a bounded payload. When developers dogfood the integration mechanisms, they must adhere to a highly restricted payload architecture designed to prevent runaway token consumption. The standardized request shape requires specific operational parameters :

In response to these constrained requests, a successful evidentiary payload must deliver a complex JSON diagnostic receipt that strictly avoids claiming an exact or perfect translation. The response must append Boolean flags indicating the output is "approximate" and provide a calculated viability retention score (R\_{before}), demonstrating that the system calculated the thermodynamic and computational cost of the action before proceeding. A critical failsafe within the payload is the publicOutputEligible flag. During dogfooding, testers intentionally submit adversarial inputs containing private-use Unicode boundaries. The system must instantly reject the input, set the flag to false, and default to a "no-op," neutralizing the threat of unbounded computational loops and massive token waste.

Combating Autonomy-Washing within the Token Economy

Perhaps the most critical non-technical function of the dogfooding environment is actively combating "autonomy-washing"—the pervasive and deceptive industry practice of inflating an artificial intelligence model's capabilities, sentience, or operational independence. Within the context of token economics, autonomy-washing is not merely a philosophical hazard; it is a primary vector for massive financial waste and resource hemorrhage. When systems are designed to appear biologically sentient or continuously aware, they constantly burn tokens to maintain the illusion of continuity. The Teleodynamic Autonomy-Washing Red-Team Guide explicitly mandates the rejection of narratives that conflate continuous token generation with biological equivalence. Reviewers operating within the creative expansion sandbox must identify and eliminate specific red flags that encourage token abuse: The system documentation must never present "Tool Chaining as Autonomy". If the testing environment produces outputs describing the automated chaining of APIs as a form of sentient intelligence, the claim must be downgraded immediately. Tool chaining without accompanying evidence of resource closure is highly deceptive, leading directly to the depletion of the Effectiveness Under Cost Budget (EuCB) as the system rapidly spends external tool tokens without oversight. Similarly, the platform must reject "Memory Continuity Overclaims". The continuous passing of massive conversational histories between sessions consumes tremendous amounts of the O(N^2 \\cdot d) context window, drastically inflating the normalized inference time. The system must not present this continuity of memory packets as proof of self-awareness or persistent biological identity. Furthermore, the system must aggressively downgrade claims of "Exact Private Translation". The capacity to interpret compact semantic glyphs must never be marketed as a hidden cryptographic codebook or a perfect translation of human thought, which implies unbounded cognitive depths. Exact translation requires massive parametric sweeps, whereas "bounded glosses" preserve the token budget. Finally, the system must not conflate "Schema Conformance" with generalized intelligence, nor use standard industry benchmarks as proof of overarching commercial safety, as these practices encourage unconstrained deployment and rapid token depletion. By forcing systems to provide bounded glosses and explicitly flag approximations, the teleodynamic structure natively restricts the token budget, institutionalizing a skepticism that favors cautious "no-ops" over unconstrained resource burn.

Operational Optimization: Moving Down the Indifference Curve

The theoretical constraints of the Token Economics Impossibility Triangle and the protective mechanisms of teleodynamic sandboxes ultimately culminate in the daily, practical requirements of optimizing enterprise artificial intelligence deployments. With inference operations generating the vast majority of AI costs over the system's lifecycle—scaling directly with every user interaction—the optimization of token flow is paramount for long-term sustainability. The primary objective for any deployed system is to strategically move down the cost-to-quality indifference curve. This requires fixing a target outcome—such as faithfulness, exact match percentage, or user task success—and iteratively tuning generation parameters to find the absolutely cheapest configuration in terms of tokens and time that satisfies the constraint. The prevailing strategies for managing the dual currency of tokens and time include several measurable trade-offs: Because output tokens are functionally sequential and highly latency-inducing (\\beta\_2), relying heavily on cached tokens offers massive leverage. When the model pulls from a stored representational state rather than recalculating the attention matrix from scratch, it bypasses the initial prefill latency (\\beta\_1), driving down both the Time to First Token and the aggregate computational bill. A critical trade-off exists between massive context windows and smarter retrieval architectures. Passing a 200,000-token context document guarantees a massive financial penalty due to quadratic scaling. The pragmatic alternative is optimizing the hit rate through highly tuned Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG). By retrieving and passing only 3 to 5 highly relevant chunks of data into the model, developers drastically slash the input token volume without degrading the end-to-end accuracy, frequently outperforming massive contexts that suffer from attention dilution. Furthermore, system architects must evaluate model-specific behaviors to prevent unnecessary token generation. Extensive empirical evaluations comparing advanced large language models highlight distinct algorithmic personalities that directly impact the invoice. Models exhibiting conservative "alignment and decoding preferences" often generate highly verbose outputs; they prioritize the completeness of fields to remain instruction-faithful, but at the severe expense of token volume and subsequent temporal degradation. Conversely, efficiency-tuned models naturally yield lean outputs, drastically reducing latency and token expenditure at the acceptable cost of occasionally omitting low-salience attributes in narrative contexts. Identifying the correct model for the task—matching the appropriate level of verbosity to the required accuracy—is the crux of inference cost management. Similarly, replacing a massive, expensive model with a smaller model paired with a lightweight reranker frequently yields identical quality metrics. If a single-pass large model beats a small-model-plus-reranker chain by a nominal margin on accuracy, the small model combination is almost universally cheaper and faster at the same functional quality.

Conclusion

The operationalization of artificial intelligence has irrevocably transcended the domain of pure computer science, evolving into a complex macroeconomic system governed by hard thermodynamic laws, bounded resource allocation, and stringent mathematical latency parameters. The metaphor of "paying in AI tokens" is profoundly literal. Tokens represent the fundamental unit of value within a Coasean value chain that stretches from localized energy consumption and silicon chip fabrication up to the insurmountable physical limits of the Bekenstein bound and Landauer's principle. Simultaneously, the expenditure of these tokens incurs an unavoidable debt in time. Navigating this new economy requires an acute understanding of the Token Economics Impossibility Triangle, acknowledging that perfectly optimal, real-time, and highly granular resource allocation is mathematically unattainable within the constraints of modern hardware. The deployment of autonomous agents exacerbates this reality, frequently leading to catastrophic token hemorrhage if not evaluated through rigorous frameworks like SWE-Effi, which balances resolution outcomes against strict token and inference time budgets. To thrive within these physical and architectural limits, systems must adopt rigorous constraint-maintaining frameworks, heavily favoring the teleodynamic "no-op" dominance to prevent the runaway consumption of both capital and computational bandwidth. By integrating bounded dogfooding environments, actively combating the deceptive practices of autonomy-washing, and systematically moving down the cost-to-quality indifference curve through precision routing, organizations can transform the highly volatile expense of artificial intelligence into a structurally stable, economically viable engine of intelligent generation.

Works cited

1\. Opinion: Get ready for the next big telco trend \- AI tokens \- Fierce Network, https://www.fierce-network.com/cloud/opinion-get-ready-next-big-telco-trend-ai-tokens 2\. What Are AI Tokens? The Language and Currency Powering Modern AI \- NVIDIA Blog, https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/ai-tokens-explained/ 3\. Optimizing AI responsiveness: A practical guide to Amazon Bedrock latency-optimized inference | Artificial Intelligence \- AWS, https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/machine-learning/optimizing-ai-responsiveness-a-practical-guide-to-amazon-bedrock-latency-optimized-inference/ 4\. SWE-Effi: Re-Evaluating Software AI Agent System Effectiveness Under Resource Constraints \- arXiv, https://arxiv.org/html/2509.09853v1 5\. Photons \= Tokens: The Physics of AI and the Economics of Knowledge \- arXiv, https://arxiv.org/html/2603.06630v1 6\. AI token economics for CFOs | Deloitte US, https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/services/consulting/articles/cfo-guide-ai-token-economics.html 7\. Token Economics for LLM Agents: A Dual-View Study from Computing and Economics, https://arxiv.org/html/2605.09104v1 8\. How Many Questions Can the World Afford to Ask AI? | Chicago Booth Review, https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/how-many-questions-can-world-afford-ask-ai 9\. Nick Polson's research works | University of Chicago and other places \- ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Nick-Polson-2201402631 10\. What Are AI Tokens — and Why Are They Costing Companies Millions? \- Kelly Services, https://www.kellyservices.com/impact-insights/what-are-ai-tokens 11\. How I Cut My LLM Costs by 80% Without Sacrificing Quality. | by Ari Vance \- Towards AI, https://pub.towardsai.net/how-i-cut-my-llm-costs-by-80-without-sacrificing-quality-85f8505eec96 12\. 10 LLM Cost-to-Quality Trade-Offs You Can Measure | by Nexumo \- Medium, https://medium.com/@Nexumo\_/10-llm-cost-to-quality-trade-offs-you-can-measure-1e02ded67c3d 13\. Most people seem obsessed with token generation speed, but isn't prefill the real bottleneck? Am I missing something? : r/LocalLLaMA \- Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1t5o4kc/most\_people\_seem\_obsessed\_with\_token\_generation/ 14\. LLM Speed Benchmarks: Metrics & Infrastructure Guide \- Redis, https://redis.io/blog/llm-speed-benchmarks/ 15\. What are AI tokens? Cost, latency, and quality explained \- Parloa, https://www.parloa.com/knowledge-hub/what-are-ai-tokens/ 16\. SWE-Effi: Holistic Effectiveness Evaluation of AI Systems Under Resource Constraints, https://centre-for-software-excellence.github.io/SWE-Effi/ 17\. What Is Token Cost in AI? \- JumpCloud, https://jumpcloud.com/it-index/what-is-token-cost-in-ai 18\. Computational Challenges in Token Economics: Bridging Economic Theory and AI System Design \- arXiv, https://arxiv.org/html/2605.17410v1 19\. \[2605.17410\] Computational Challenges in Token Economics: Bridging Economic Theory and AI System Design \- arXiv, https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.17410 20\. Efficient LLM Scheduling by Learning to Rank | Request PDF \- ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/397198948\_Efficient\_LLM\_Scheduling\_by\_Learning\_to\_Rank 21\. What is the Token Economy? From the Era of 'Using AI' to the Era of 'Consuming Intelligence' \- note, https://note.com/clever\_dill727/n/n0bc184993d0c?hl=en 22\. Pinjia He's research works | Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen and other places, https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Pinjia-He-2064841020/publications/2 23\. \[2509.09853\] SWE-Effi: Re-Evaluating Software AI Agent System Effectiveness Under Resource Constraints \- arXiv, https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.09853 24\. Yihao Chen's research works | Queen's University and other places, https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Yihao-Chen-2259802051 25\. Optimizing Inference Costs: The Complete Guide \- Mirantis, https://www.mirantis.com/blog/inference-costs/ 26\. Prompt engineering for structured data: a comparative evaluation of styles and LLM performance \- W\&M Computer Science, https://www.cs.wm.edu/\~dcschmidt/PDF/Optimizing\_Prompt\_Styles\_for\_Structured\_Data\_Generation\_in\_LLM.pdf