Skip to content
THE LINUX FOUNDATION PROJECTS
AI Tokenomics Fundamentals Certification Now Available →
September 23, 2026
Release Candidate 1.0

State of Tokenomics

Download State of Tokenomics Slides

472
Responses
responses across 11 industries
$4.6tn
Total revenue
In total revenue across nearly 500 companies.
$1.8B
Median revenue
Median revenue of respondents. Mean revenue is ~$21B of respondents.
Six findings

What the data says about AI spend

Who took the survey

Large companies spanning industries

Share of respondents
Revenue represented
Technology / Software
40%
$2.9T
Financial Services
17%
$1.1T
Professional Services
11%
$472B
Healthcare / Life Sciences
6%
$1.5T
Other
6%
$788B
Government / Public Sector
5%
$119B
Manufacturing / Industrials
4%
$721B
Energy / Utilities
3%
$267B
Telecommunications
3%
$145B
Retail / Consumer
2%
$342B
Media / Entertainment
2%
$114B
472
responses across 11 industries
$4.6tn
In total revenue across nearly 500 companies.
$1.8B
Median revenue of respondents. Mean revenue is ~$21B of respondents.
Context

Everyone uses Frontier, a third running edge and private AI

96%
Model provider
Anthropic, OpenAI, Gemini,
Moonshot, DeepSeek
87%
Token provider (cloud)
AWS Bedrock, Google Vertex,
Azure Foundry
64%
Embedded AI
Cursor, Windsurf,
Databricks Genie, Snowflake CoCo
32%
Edge, local, desktop
31%
Rented hardware
Cloud or neocloud GPUs
29%
Private hardware
Data center or colo

Half of AI consumers spread across 4 of the 6 procurement/hosting channels.

Nearly one in five already uses at least one of Deepseek, Qwen, Kimi or GLM.

Context

High cardinality: lots of models being run in lots of places

Frontier models
Open weight models
First party models
(you train or fine-tune)
Model provider
Anthropic, OpenAI, Gemini, Moonshot, DeepSeek
86%
35%
18%
Token provider (cloud)
AWS Bedrock, Google Vertex, Azure Foundry
76%
34%
16%
Rented hardware
Cloud or neocloud GPUs
24%
16%
Private hardware
Data center or colo
21%
15%
Embedded AI
Cursor, Windsurf, Databricks Genie, Snowflake CoCo
54%
23%
9%
Edge, local, desktop
29%
9%

Share of respondents using each surface. Bubble area is proportional to the number of respondents.

Open weights

The frontier labs have the workloads today. Enterprises considering shift toward open weights.

Today
Frontier
models
12-months
9–10
7–8
5–6
3–4
0–2
40%30%20%10%0%
Open weights
0%10%20%30%40%
Today12-months
Frontier
models
9–10
33%
10%
7–8
29%
34%
5–6
20%
35%
3–4
9%
12%
0–2
8%
8%
Open weights

0–10 Scale – Balance of open weight vs closed frontier models in your organization

51% describe themselves as 8-10 Frontier now; only 24% expect to be there next year.
The heaviest Frontier users plan the biggest shift: those at 10 today expect to drop 2.7 points.
Only 17% are expecting to shift to more frontier next year
Proof

Yet, three in four enterprises cannot confidently prove AI business outcomes to the CFO

Many are moderately confident in their AI spend visibility…
20%
28%
39%
14%
Not at all confident
Slightly confident
Moderately confident
Very confident
…yet far fewer can connect that spend to a measurable business outcome
39%
34%
17%
9%
Not confident
Slightly confident
Moderately confident
Very confident
Common traits for those who are very confident:
Spend is metered and attributable across workloads and teams
Track concrete business output metrics (tickets, PRs, revenue)
60%
of organizations with moderately confident AI spend visibility are unable provide a measurable business outcome to their CFO.
Confidence falls as revenue rises.
<$100M34%$10B+23%$1B to $10B17%$100M to $1B14%

Small companies more likely to see the whole picture.

25%
of those with highly confident AI spend are able provide a measurable business outcome to their CFO.
Challenges

The biggest Tokenomics challenges are tied to value, visibility, and fragmentation

ROI & Value Measurement

The overwhelming challenge is connecting AI investments to tangible business outcomes, with most organizations unable to quantify ROI beyond basic token consumption metrics.

Fragmented Visibility

Companies lack unified dashboards to track AI spending across multiple vendors and business units, creating governance gaps and budget overruns.

Lack of Industry Standardization

The rapid pace of AI development and lack of common metrics across providers makes it difficult for organizations to establish consistent governance frameworks and forecasting models.

What are your biggest Tokenomics challenges?
Proving value / ROI
43%
Visibility & attribution of spend
27%
Measurement & data quality
18%
Skills, literacy & culture
11%
Forecasting & unpredictable cost
11%
Governance & ownership
11%
Efficiency & optimisation
9%
Model / vendor choice & lock-in
8%
Cost / pricing complexity
7%
43%
named proving value or ROI, the single largest challenge reported.
Only 7%
named cost or pricing complexity as a challenge.
Capabilities

Core capabilities focus on attribution, modeling economic impact, model routing, governance, and demand planning

Value Attribution

Respondents emphasized tracking and attributing AI costs to specific users, projects, and business units as fundamental capabilities.

Economic Modeling of AI Impact

Participants stressed connecting AI spending to business outcomes and calculating return on investment. Measuring AI’s business impact as critical but challenging.

Model Routing

Selecting appropriate models for tasks and optimizing AI resource usage through intelligent routing. They saw this as key for controlling costs while maintaining performance.

Governance Controls

Participants emphasized implementing spending limits, alerts, and policy controls for AI usage. They viewed governance as necessary for ensuring responsible AI adoption.

Forecasting Demand Planning

The importance of predicting future AI costs and planning resource capacity. They acknowledged difficulty in accurate AI demand prediction.

Governance

Governance of developer productivity spending is immature and budget cap focused

1
Most lack formal frameworks

Most organizations are in early stages of AI spending governance, with many lacking formal frameworks to manage developer productivity costs effectively.

2
Focus is on monitoring now, ROI later

While companies invest in monitoring tools and dashboards, they struggle to connect AI spending to measurable productivity outcomes and ROI.

3
Simple Budget-First approach

Organizations primarily rely on spending caps and token limits as their main control mechanism, suggesting a need for more sophisticated governance models.

Ownership

Who owns AI Economics in the enterprise? “Technology” is driving but “Shared” is close behind

Who owns tokenomics
35% CTO, CIO, Technology
26% Shared across functions
12% Nobody / not yet defined
9% CEO or executive team
6% AI leadership (CAIO, CDO, AI team)
5% Finance
7% Other (e.g. product, business unit)

Those with defined ownership of Tokenomics are 3.7x more likely to show value to the CFO.

88%
Have defined ownership
12%
No owner. Not one of them can connect AI spend to a CFO outcome…
Routing

Model routing capabilities being bought and built by enterprises of all sizes

Model routing solutions being considered, by company revenue
No plansEvaluating onlyBothPurchased onlyHomegrown only
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Under $100M
$100M to $10B
Over $10B
86%
Overall are evaluating or using a model router
4x value correlation
Those using routers are 4x more likely to be able to show CFO value.
Model routing

Many model routing tools being evaluated while using multiples most common in large enterprises

1
Long tail of tools with highest adoption of OpenRouter & LiteLLM

Significant fragmentation split between established solutions like OpenRouter and LiteLLM, with home grown builds, and cloud-native options common, suggesting need for clearer vendor differentiation.

2
Early stage evaluations show low maturity

Many respondents indicate uncertainty or early-stage evaluation, revealing an opportunity to provide educational content, implementation guides, and proof-of-concept support to accelerate adoption decisions.

3
Multi-provider use is common in largest enterprises

Advanced users increasingly adopt hybrid approaches combining multiple routing solutions with homegrown solutions, indicating demand for interoperability standards and integration-friendly architectures in future product development.

Transparency

The ask to model and token providers is more granular AI spend and usage data, not discounts

What buyers want providers to offer
More transparency / granular data
23%
Standards such as FOCUS
19%
Attribution & tagging
17%
Efficiency guidance
13%
Budget guardrails
9%
Cheaper prices
4%
23%
asked for more transparency and granular data — the single biggest ask. Only 4% asked for cheaper prices.

Enterprises are not asking providers to charge less. They are asking for a bill they can explain to a CFO. That is the cheapest thing a frontier lab could ever give away, and it directly protects the next budget cycle.

Without being asked about it, 7% wrote FOCUS, the open billing data standard now used across cloud providers, into a free-text answer.

The ask

Enterprises hungry for better transparency, standardization and measurement from model and token providers

Transparency into AI cost and usage

Organizations desperately need real-time, detailed visibility beyond basic token counts, demanding itemized breakdowns and transparent pricing models.

Standardization between provider formats

Lack of consistent billing formats and data structures across AI providers creates significant operational challenges for teams.

Better ROI measurement

Companies struggle to connect AI to business outcomes, highlighting the need for better ROI measurement tooling.

Pricing

Companies expect their pricing models and margins to be impacted by AI

Pricing Evolution in Progress

Most companies have changed or are actively planning shifts toward usage-based and outcome-driven models to handle AI cost variability.

Margin Management Challenge

Significant pressure from unpredictable AI costs that threaten traditional profit margins and require new financial planning approaches.

Strategic Uncertainty Persists

High levels of uncertainty indicate the market is still maturing, suggesting need for flexible pricing frameworks and better cost prediction tools.

52%
Already changed pricing or are considering it
30%
Reported no change, while 18% said it was too early to tell
38%

Are considering energy consumption in their Tokenomics

Typically those that answered yes own or rent hardware (DC or colo) and train first party models or utilize open-weight models

Energy is in the equation
Labor

How has AI costs affected staffing and labor planning?

+ Productivity Enhancement: AI is boosting team efficiency and output, allowing organizations to accomplish more work with existing staff levels.

± Skills Transformation: Organizations shifting focus toward AI-specialized roles while reducing demand for traditional or entry-level positions.

± Budget Reallocation: Companies are redirecting funds from traditional hiring budgets to AI investments, treating it as a staffing alternative.

– Layoffs and Reductions: Companies have implemented workforce reductions, with some experiencing significant layoffs directly attributed to AI adoption.

State of Tokenomics

Download State of Tokenomics Slides