The Twin Illusions of the AI Boom: A Research Report on Platform and Data Dependency

Executive Summary

The contemporary Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) markets are characterized by unprecedented capital investment and valuations that echo previous technology booms. This report validates the hypothesis that the current market exhibits significant bubble-like characteristics, driven by widespread investor blind spots concerning two fundamental and interconnected vulnerabilities: platform dependency and data dependency. While the transformative potential of AI is undeniable, the prevailing investment thesis often overlooks the precarious foundations upon which many new ventures are built.

First, platform dependency exposes startups to existential threats when they build their business models on ecosystems controlled by tech behemoths like Microsoft, Google, or OpenAI. These platforms can—and frequently do—alter algorithms, change pricing models, or launch competing features, effectively neutralizing startups that have served as unwitting, venture-funded research and development labs. Historical precedents, from the Zynga-Facebook relationship to the recent culling of the Twitter/X API ecosystem, demonstrate a recurring and predictable pattern of risk.

Second, data dependency and the pursuit of a "data moat" are proving to be more complex and less defensible than commonly assumed. While proprietary data remains a source of competitive advantage, the rise of powerful foundation models is commoditizing many data-driven capabilities. Furthermore, the most valuable datasets are often entangled in privacy and regulatory complexities, rendering them practically unusable for training. True defensibility is therefore shifting from the mere accumulation of data to its intelligent application through deep workflow integration, execution speed, and human-in-the-loop feedback systems—nuances that are largely absent from the current hype-driven discourse.

These twin dependencies are not separate issues but are causally linked; a failure to secure a genuine data advantage often forces a startup into a position of platform dependency, creating a cascade of vulnerability. This analysis concludes that the current cycle is less likely to result in a systemic market crash akin to the dot-com bust and more likely to culminate in a mass extinction event for the startup ecosystem, followed by a strategic consolidation of power by the incumbent platform owners.

Section 1: The 2025 AI & SaaS Market: Anatomy of a Potential Bubble

To understand the structural risks facing the AI and SaaS sectors, it is first necessary to establish the macroeconomic context. The current investment environment is defined by a historic influx of capital, valuations predicated on exponential future growth, and a market psychology that bears a striking resemblance to past technology bubbles. However, critical differences in the market's underlying structure suggest that any future "bust" will manifest differently than historical precedents.

1.1 The Capital Tsunami: Analyzing 2024-2025 Venture Funding

The sheer volume and velocity of capital entering the AI sector are the primary indicators of a market operating in a state of heightened exuberance. Global venture capital (VC) funding for AI companies exceeded $100 billion in 2024, representing an increase of over 80% from the $55.6 billion invested in 2023.¹ This momentum continued into 2025, with Q2 alone seeing $91 billion in global venture funding, of which an astounding $40 billion—or 45%—was directed into the AI sector.² This level of investment, where AI captures nearly a third of all global venture dollars, signals a market driven by a powerful narrative and a collective fear of missing out, rather than a measured, fundamentals-based allocation of resources.¹

This capital is not being distributed evenly; it is highly concentrated, creating a starkly hierarchical ecosystem. During the first half of 2025, over a third of all venture funding went to just 11 companies that raised rounds of $1 billion or more.² In Q2 2025, this concentration was even more pronounced, with nearly one-third of all capital flowing to only 16 companies.² This trend is exemplified by a handful of massive financing events, including a $14.3 billion funding round for data infrastructure provider Scale AI and a staggering $40 billion financing for OpenAI.²

This concentration is creating a "kingmaker" dynamic. A few heavily funded entities, such as OpenAI, Anthropic, and Scale AI, are becoming the foundational platforms upon which the rest of the ecosystem is being built. The vast majority of smaller startups are not the recipients of this capital wave but are instead positioned as dependent customers of these new giants. This capital structure is actively creating the conditions for systemic platform risk, which will be deconstructed in Section 2. The funding boom, paradoxically, is financing the future demise of a large segment of the very market it purports to support.

1.2 Valuation Vertigo: A Look at SaaS & AI Multiples

The valuations assigned to companies in this environment reflect an extreme level of optimism about future growth. As of early 2025, the median valuation multiple for public SaaS companies stands at 7.0 times their current annualized recurring revenue (ARR), with the top decile of performers commanding multiples as high as 14.2 times their ARR.⁴ In the private markets, multiples range from a modest 3x to 5x ARR for companies with less than 20% growth, to a robust 7x to 10x ARR for those with growth rates exceeding 40%.⁵

For AI-centric companies, especially those in favoured verticals like fintech, healthcare, and logistics, these multiples can be even higher, with valuations of 8x to 10x revenue being achievable.⁶ The industry's reliance on revenue-based multiples over traditional earnings-based metrics like EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization) for high-growth companies is an explicit acknowledgment that current profitability is not the primary driver of value.⁷ Instead, valuations are based on the assumption that significant upfront investments in growth will lead to massively expanded profits in the future, a hallmark of speculative investment cycles.⁵ While metrics like the "Rule of 40"—where a company's growth rate plus its profit margin should exceed 40%—provide a veneer of discipline, the market consistently places a heavy premium on the growth component of this equation.⁵

1.3 Echoes of 2000: The AI Boom vs. The Dot-Com Bubble

The current market sentiment inevitably draws comparisons to the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s. The parallels are significant and instructive. Both eras were sparked by a transformative technology that captured the public imagination, leading to a period of what former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan termed "irrational exuberance."⁸ Both cycles featured a "kickstarter moment"—the Netscape IPO in 1995 and the public release of ChatGPT in late 2022—that ignited the boom.⁸

Furthermore, both periods saw massive capital expenditure on infrastructure, with telecommunication companies spending nearly $500 billion ($1 trillion in today's dollars) to build out the internet between 1996 and 2001, a scale of investment mirrored by today's hyperscalers building out AI capacity.⁸ In both cases, the initial, most tangible beneficiaries were the "picks and shovels" companies: firms like Cisco, Sun, and EMC during the dot-com era, and Nvidia today, which supplies the essential hardware for the revolution.⁸

However, the differences between the two eras are even more profound and point toward a different kind of reckoning. The dot-com bubble was characterized by hundreds of IPOs for companies with no profits and often no viable business model; firms like Pets.com raised $82.5 million only to go bankrupt months later.⁹ In stark contrast, the current AI boom is anchored by some of the most profitable companies in history. Tech giants like Microsoft, Google, and Amazon are funding their multi-billion-dollar AI investments primarily with their immense free cash flow, rather than through speculative debt, as many dot-com-era firms did.⁸

This structural difference is crucial. In the dot-com bust, the failure of unprofitable companies to generate revenue led to defaults on the debt used to fund their expansion, triggering a wider financial shockwave. Today, if the projected ROI from AI fails to materialize at the expected scale, the cash-rich incumbents will not go bankrupt. Instead, they will strategically rationalize spending, consolidate the market by acquiring distressed startups at a discount, and tighten their control over their platforms. Therefore, the coming "bust" is unlikely to be a broad market crash reflected in the Nasdaq composite. It is more likely to be a strategic consolidation and a culling of the dependent, venture-backed startup class—a mass extinction event that is less visible to the public markets but devastating for entrepreneurs and their investors.

Section 2: The Platform Paradox: Building Empires on Rented Land

The immense concentration of capital into a few foundational AI companies is giving rise to a new generation of platforms. For thousands of smaller startups, building on these platforms offers the fastest path to market, providing access to cutting-edge technology and massive user bases. However, this convenience comes at a steep, often hidden, price. This dependency creates a structural vulnerability—platform risk—that can invalidate a startup's business model overnight. This is not a new phenomenon; it is a recurring pattern in technology cycles, where the interests of the platform owner ultimately supersede those of the ecosystem participants.

2.1 A Framework for Platform Risk

Platform risk is not a single threat but a multifaceted set of vulnerabilities that arise from building a business on infrastructure one does not control. These risks can be categorized into several key types, each with potentially devastating consequences for a dependent company.¹² The most common impacts include a sudden and total loss of revenue, the inability to access customers or user data, and significant reputational damage as a business appears to vanish without explanation.¹²

2.2 Case Study 1: The OpenAI Ecosystem - The Cannibal in the Cloud

The current AI ecosystem offers a vivid modern example of competitive platform risk. A wave of startups has emerged whose entire business model consists of building a user-friendly "wrapper" or specialized application on top of OpenAI's powerful APIs.¹⁴ These companies effectively serve as a distributed R&D department for OpenAI, identifying and validating valuable use cases for its technology.

However, this strategy is fraught with peril. With each major product announcement, OpenAI has systematically integrated the most popular of these use cases directly into its core offering, rendering entire categories of startups obsolete overnight.¹⁶ This has been observed with tools for meeting summarization, multi-modal applications that use voice and images, and specialized automation suites.¹⁴ One founder poignantly described having their startup "killed" twice by OpenAI, first when custom GPTs replicated their prompt-driven approach, and again when native study features absorbed their app's signature value, leading to a flood of refund requests and the evaporation of revenue.¹⁶

This pattern reveals a fundamental conflict of interest. The platform has perfect visibility into which third-party applications are succeeding. It has every incentive to internalize these successful features to enhance its own product and capture the associated value. For a "wrapper" startup, this means their business model is not a sustainable enterprise but merely a feature request to the platform owner, one that is likely to be fulfilled once its value is proven.

2.3 Case Study 2: The Zynga-Facebook Precedent - A History Lesson in Dependency

The dynamic between social gaming pioneer Zynga and Facebook serves as a canonical case study in the full lifecycle of platform dependency.¹⁸ Zynga's explosive growth in the late 2000s was powered by its masterful use of Facebook's social graph and notification system, which allowed games like

FarmVille to achieve unprecedented viral acquisition.²¹ At its peak, Zynga was so intertwined with Facebook that it was a key driver of user engagement for the social network itself.²³

This symbiotic relationship, however, was ultimately governed by Facebook's priorities. As user complaints about "spammy" game notifications grew, Facebook made critical changes to its News Feed algorithm and platform policies to curb viral messaging.²¹ These changes directly choked off Zynga's primary user acquisition channel, contributing to a decline in its player base. Later, a new agreement between the two companies further asserted Facebook's control, forcing Zynga to adopt Facebook's payment system (ceding a 30% revenue share) and restricting its ability to promote its own off-platform properties, such as Zynga.com.²⁴

The Zynga precedent serves as a powerful historical analogy for the challenges facing today's AI startups. It demonstrates that even for a partner that is instrumental to a platform's success, the platform owner will always prioritize its own long-term interests, whether that means protecting its user experience, maximizing its own monetization, or controlling the flow of users and data within its walled garden.

2.4 Case Study 3: The Twitter/X API Shift - Pulling the Plug

The evolution of the Twitter API under its new ownership as X provides a stark illustration of policy & fee risk. For years, Twitter offered a relatively open and often free API that fostered a vibrant ecosystem of third-party applications, academic research projects, and business intelligence tools.²⁵ This ecosystem was built on the assumption of continued, stable access to the platform's data stream.

In 2023, this assumption was shattered. The company abruptly deprecated its existing API tiers and introduced a new, highly restrictive, and prohibitively expensive pricing model.²⁷ The free tier was virtually eliminated, and the basic paid tier was severely limited, while enterprise-level access was priced at tens of thousands of dollars per month, with some estimates ranging from $42,000 to $210,000.²⁷

The impact was immediate and devastating. Countless independent developers, startups, and public interest researchers were forced to shut down their services overnight.²⁷ Social media management tools like Later were compelled to drop support for the platform entirely.²⁹ This case study is a crucial warning: the foundational rules upon which a business is built can be arbitrarily changed by the platform owner, instantly rendering a viable business model untenable. It highlights the extreme vulnerability of any company whose core value proposition depends on access to a third-party platform's data or functionality.

Section 3: The Data Moat Dilemma: Is Proprietary Data the Ultimate Defence?

The second critical dependency shaping the AI landscape is the reliance on data. For years, the prevailing wisdom in venture capital has been that a proprietary dataset constitutes the most durable competitive advantage—an economic "moat" that protects a business from competition. In the age of AI, where the performance of models is directly tied to the quality and volume of training data, this belief has only intensified. However, this conventional thesis is now facing a significant challenge, as the very nature of AI technology and the practical realities of data governance are eroding the walls of the traditional data fortress.

3.1 The Classic Data Moat: An Impenetrable Fortress?

The concept of a data moat is straightforward: a company gains a sustainable competitive edge by collecting and leveraging proprietary data that competitors cannot easily access or replicate.34 This creates a powerful barrier to entry. A new competitor, even with superior algorithms, cannot match the performance of an incumbent whose models have been refined by years of unique, real-world data. This advantage is theorized to create a self-reinforcing "data flywheel": more users generate more data, which is used to improve the product, attracting more users in turn and further widening the moat.³⁵

Classic examples of this strategy are abundant. Netflix's recommendation engine is powered by billions of hours of proprietary viewing data, allowing it to deliver highly personalized experiences that retain subscribers.34 Amazon leverages its vast repository of purchasing and logistics data to optimize its supply chain with an efficiency that is nearly impossible for rivals to match.34 In the AI era, Tesla stands out, using data collected from millions of its vehicles on the road to continuously improve its autonomous driving algorithms, creating a data asset that competitors in the automotive industry struggle to replicate.36 For many investors, the existence of such a proprietary data flywheel is the primary justification for the high valuations of AI-driven companies.³⁷

3.2 The Counter-Argument: The Crumbling Walls of the Data Castle

Despite its intuitive appeal, the data moat thesis is facing a growing chorus of skepticism from within the technology and investment communities. A compelling counter-narrative argues that traditional data moats are becoming less defensible and, in some cases, are an illusion.³⁹

One primary driver of this erosion is the increasing power of large, pre-trained foundation models, such as OpenAI's GPT series or Google's Gemini. These models are trained on vast swathes of public internet data and possess powerful generalized reasoning capabilities. As a result, they can often achieve high performance on specific tasks with much less domain-specific data than was previously required for training a model from scratch.³⁶ This dramatically lowers the barrier to entry for new competitors, as a "good enough" AI product can be built by fine-tuning an existing foundation model rather than by accumulating a massive proprietary dataset over many years. The commoditizing force of open-source models further accelerates this trend, destroying the advantage of purely proprietary algorithms.⁴¹

Furthermore, many founders and investors are discovering that the concept of a data moat is often "bullshit" in practice.⁴⁰ The reason is that the most valuable and differentiated data—customer interactions, private financial records, confidential legal documents, patient health information—is also the most sensitive. This data is entangled in a web of privacy regulations (like GDPR and HIPAA) and customer trust expectations.³⁶ Companies cannot simply feed this data into their models for general training without facing enormous legal, ethical, and reputational risks. A single data leak could be an extinction-level event. This creates a paradox: the data that would theoretically create the strongest moat is often the most dangerous and impractical to use, rendering the moat illusory.

3.3 The New Defensibility: From Data Hoarding to Intelligent Application

If the traditional data moat is eroding, it does not mean that defensibility is impossible. Instead, the basis of competitive advantage is shifting from merely possessing data to its intelligent and rapid application within specific contexts. Several new, more nuanced forms of moats are emerging as critical differentiators.³⁵

• Workflow Integration: The deepest moat may not be the data itself, but how deeply a product is woven into a customer's essential daily operations. When an AI tool becomes the system of record for a critical business process, removing it would cause unacceptable disruption, creating enormous switching costs that have little to do with the volume of data stored. ²⁰
• Execution Velocity and Adaptability: In a rapidly commoditizing technology landscape, the ability to identify new opportunities, build features, and respond to customer feedback faster than the competition becomes a moat in itself. Companies that can ship AI-powered improvements on a weekly basis will consistently outpace those operating on quarterly planning cycles.³⁹
• Human-in-the-Loop Feedback: Rather than relying on passive data collection, leading companies are building tight, continuous feedback loops between their AI models and human experts. When an AI makes a mistake or encounters an edge case, that feedback is used to immediately refine the model. This process creates a form of "compound intelligence" that is highly specific to the company's unique business context and customer needs, making the AI feel almost telepathic in its accuracy over time.³⁵
• Trust and Responsible AI: In high-stakes industries such as finance and healthcare, a demonstrable commitment to security, compliance, transparency, and ethical AI can be a powerful differentiator. Customers will choose the provider they trust to handle their sensitive data and processes responsibly, even if a competitor claims to have a slightly better algorithm.⁴¹

This evolution represents a crucial shift in strategic thinking. The advantage no longer lies in hoarding information but in the speed and intelligence of its application. For startups and investors, this means the critical question is not "How big is your dataset?" but "How deeply are you embedded in your customer's workflow, and how fast can you learn?"

Section 4: Investor Blind Spots and the Psychology of Hype Cycles

The analysis of platform and data dependencies reveals a significant disconnect between the perceived sources of value in the current AI market and the underlying structural realities. This gap is sustained by critical investor blind spots, which are amplified by the psychological dynamics inherent in any technology-driven hype cycle. Understanding these blind spots is key to anticipating the nature of the coming market correction.

4.1 Defining the Blind Spots: The Twin Dependencies

The core of the market's current vulnerability can be traced to two pervasive and interconnected miscalculations by investors and founders alike.

• Blind Spot 1: Mischaracterizing Platform Risk. There is a widespread tendency to view building on a major platform as a clever growth hack or a necessary early-stage tactic. This perspective fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the risk. It is not a temporary trade-off but a permanent, structural vulnerability. Investors often fail to adequately price in the near-certainty that a successful application's value will eventually be captured by the platform owner, who controls the rules, distribution, and customer relationships. The recurring pattern of platform cannibalization is treated as an unfortunate surprise rather than an inevitable outcome of the ecosystem's power dynamics.
• Blind Spot 2: The "Data Moat" Fallacy. Many investors are still operating with an outdated mental model of data defensibility. They continue to place a premium on the sheer quantity of data a startup possesses, overlooking the new realities of the AI era. They are often blind to the fact that powerful foundation models have lowered the data barrier to entry, and that the most sensitive—and thus most valuable—customer data is practically off-limits for training due to privacy and legal risks. This leads them to overvalue illusory data moats while undervaluing the more durable, emerging moats of deep workflow integration, execution speed, and trust.

These two blind spots are not independent; they are causally linked in a cycle of vulnerability. A startup that recognizes its lack of a proprietary dataset often turns to a major platform to gain access to the users and data it needs to function. In doing so, it trades a data dependency problem for a platform dependency problem. The platform owner, who possesses both the platform and the underlying user data, is then perfectly positioned to observe the startup's success and replicate its functionality, closing the trap. The initial failure to achieve a defensible data advantage directly leads to a fatal exposure to platform risk.

4.2 The Psychology of the Gold Rush: FOMO over Fundamentals

These blind spots can persist and proliferate due to the powerful psychological forces at play during a technology hype cycle. The current market is characterized by overwhelmingly one-sided bullish sentiment, a flood of inexperienced buyers making decisions based on news headlines and social media buzz, and a pervasive fear of missing out (FOMO) that supplants rigorous due diligence.⁴³

This environment is familiar to any seasoned observer of market cycles. The compelling narrative of a world-changing technology like AI creates a gravitational pull that encourages a suspension of disbelief. The focus of investment shifts from a company's fundamental soundness—its profitability, its defensible business model, its unit economics—to its perceived connection to the prevailing trend. The critical question becomes "Is this an AI company?" rather than "Is this a good business?" This narrative-driven investing provides fertile ground for the growth of blind spots regarding platform and data risk, as these structural weaknesses are easily overlooked in the rush to gain exposure to the next big thing.

4.3 Emerging Second-Order Risks

Beyond the primary dependencies, several second-order risks are emerging that could serve as catalysts for a market correction. These risks can be categorized into systemic market challenges, data ecosystem degradation, and direct operational hurdles.

Risk 1: The ROI Deficit. There is a growing body of evidence suggesting a significant gap between the massive corporate investment in AI and the tangible returns being generated. A 2025 MIT study, for example, found that while U.S. businesses have invested an estimated $40 billion in AI initiatives, 95% of them report negligible or nonexistent gains in profitability.⁴⁴ This has led prominent venture capital firms, such as Sequoia Capital, to publicly question where the revenue is, noting the monumental gap between the capital invested in AI and the incremental revenue it has produced.⁴⁵ If the enterprise customers that B2B AI startups depend on fail to see a clear return on their investment, a wave of budget cuts and a cooling of enthusiasm—a potential "AI winter"—becomes a distinct possibility.

Risk 2: "AI Slop" and Data Pollution. A more insidious, long-term risk is the degradation of the data ecosystem itself. The proliferation of low-quality, misleading, or entirely synthetic content generated by AI systems, often referred to as "AI slop," is polluting the internet—the primary source of training data for future AI models.⁴⁷ This creates the risk of "model collapse" or "degradation," a phenomenon where AI models trained on the synthetic output of previous models become progressively less accurate and reliable over time.⁴⁷ For investors, this introduces a new, critical diligence question: how is a company protecting its data assets from this systemic pollution, and what is the provenance of the data used to train its models? This risk undermines the core assumption of perpetual, data-driven improvement that underpins the entire AI investment thesis.

Risk 3: Operational Blind Spots. Finally, a third category of risk lies not at the systemic level, but within the internal operations of startups and their ability to integrate with customers. Even if a startup can prove ROI and uses clean data, it faces significant hurdles in deployment and adoption. An analysis by Content Science Review on these operational blind spots highlights several challenges:⁴⁸

• Data Privacy and Liability: As startups acquire customer data to refine their models, they simultaneously inherit significant liability and risk associated with its privacy and security.
• Workflow Integration Friction: There is an immense and often underestimated challenge in embedding a new AI tool into a client's established, and frequently resistant, internal workflows, hindering adoption.
• Output Over-reliance and Validation: A dangerous tendency can develop where users trust AI outputs implicitly without proper validation, creating significant risk of costly errors and reputational damage that falls on the AI provider.

While first-order risks can cause a company to fail spectacularly, these operational hurdles can lead to a slow erosion of trust and profitability, proving just as fatal.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the evidence presented in this report substantiates the thesis that the current valuation landscape for many SaaS and AI startups is built upon a precarious foundation, with market participants systemically underpricing the dual risks of platform and data dependency. The historical case study of Zynga's reliance on Facebook, mirrored by the contemporary impacts of Twitter's API changes and OpenAI's platform evolution, demonstrates that platform risk is not a theoretical vulnerability but a recurring and potent threat to third-party value creation. 

Furthermore, the analysis of data as a competitive moat reveals a significant chasm between startups operating with limited datasets and the incumbents whose proprietary data provides a nearly insurmountable advantage. Taken together, these factors strongly suggest that the market is poised for a significant correction—a "flight to quality" where capital will inevitably consolidate around the few entities with true platform ownership or genuinely defensible data assets. 

Therefore, for all stakeholders, from venture capitalists to enterprise leaders, the path forward requires a shift from hype-driven momentum to a more disciplined, fundamentals-based evaluation framework. The critical questions must evolve from "What can the technology do?" to "Who owns the ecosystem?" and "How durable is the data advantage?" Only by answering these can long-term, sustainable value be accurately identified amidst the current speculative frenzy.

Works cited

1. The State of the Funding Market for AI Companies: A 2024 - 2025 Outlook | Mintz, accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.mintz.com/insights-center/viewpoints/2166/2025-03-10-state-funding-market-ai-companies-2024-2025-outlook
2. Q2 Global Venture Funding Climbs In A Blockbuster Quarter For AI ..., accessed September 1, 2025, https://news.crunchbase.com/venture/global-funding-climbs-q2-2025-ai-ma-data/
3. VC Funding Surge in the First Half of 2025: AI Drives Record Investment, accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.arionresearch.com/blog/2bq06ztqwua9zwe5iewc84cevdj2t8
4. 2025 Private SaaS Company Valuations - SaaS Capital, accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.saas-capital.com/blog-posts/private-saas-company-valuations-multiples/
5. SaaS Valuation Multiples in 2025 [New Data] - Flippa, accessed September 1, 2025, https://flippa.com/blog/saas-multiples-2025/
6. AI valuation multiples: most valuable industries in 2025 - SaaS Group, accessed September 1, 2025, https://saas.group/blog/ai-valuation-multiples-most-valuable-industries-in-2025/
7. SaaS Valuations: How to Value a SaaS Business in 2025 | FE International, accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.feinternational.com/blog/saas-metrics-value-saas-business
8. Dissecting the AI boom through the dotcom lens - SiliconANGLE, accessed September 1, 2025, https://siliconangle.com/2024/02/24/dissecting-ai-boom-dotcom-lens/
9. Are AI Stocks the Next Pets.com? Key Bubble Indicators Investors Should Watch, accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/ai-stocks-and-signs-of-a-bubble-11765638
10. AI Hype vs. Dot-Com Bubble: A 25-Year Market Lens – CKGSB Knowledge, accessed September 1, 2025, https://english.ckgsb.edu.cn/knowledge/article/dot-com-to-deepseek-25-year-tech-bubble-comparison-for-ai-er/
11. Are there similarities between this AI "boom" and the dot com bubble? : r/investing - Reddit, accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/investing/comments/1emgjsp/are_there_similarities_between_this_ai_boom_and/
12. Platform risk: How to identify your business's exposure | Stripe, accessed September 1, 2025, https://stripe.com/ae/resources/more/platform-risk-how-to-identify-it-assess-it-and-build-a-more-resilient-business
13. What is platform risk? - Startup Illustrated, accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.startupillustrated.com/Archive/Platform-Risk/
14. In every release, OpenAI is killing startups with good potential : r ..., accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/ProductManagement/comments/1l3qa69/in_every_release_openai_is_killing_startups_with/
15. It's getting tiring how people dismiss every startup building on top of OpenAI as "just another wrapper" - Reddit, accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/AI_Agents/comments/1lbzj85/its_getting_tiring_how_people_dismiss_every/
16. OpenAI, why are you killing my startup — for the second time? - GPT builders, accessed September 1, 2025, https://community.openai.com/t/openai-why-are-you-killing-my-startup-for-the-second-time/1355491
17. This announcement seem to have killed so many startups that were trying to do mu... | Hacker News, accessed September 1, 2025, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37642779
18. Case Study: Zynga Essay - 1009 Words - Bartleby.com, accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Case-Study-Zynga-FK4G3Z2MC
19. Zynga, Inc. - EnTechnon, accessed September 1, 2025, https://etm.entechnon.kit.edu/downloads/Zynga_Inc.pdf
20. Oil Wells vs. Pipelines: Two Strategies for Building AI Companies ..., accessed September 1, 2025, https://a16z.com/oil-wells-vs-pipelines-two-strategies-for-building-ai-companies/
21. Zynga - Wikipedia, accessed September 1, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zynga
22. Zynga Vs Facebook: Evolution of Viral Marketing - Platform Thinking Labs, accessed September 1, 2025, https://platformthinkinglabs.com/materials/zynga-facebook-social-gaming-failure-fall/
23. Is Zynga's Dependence on Facebook the Key to Its Success - Or Its ..., accessed September 1, 2025, https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/is-zyngas-dependence-on-facebook-the-key-to-its-success-or-its-downfall/
24. What does the change in Zynga's agreement with Facebook mean to other game companies, accessed September 1, 2025, https://lloydmelnick.com/2012/11/30/what-does-the-change-in-zyngas-agreement-with-facebook-mean-to-other-game-companies/
25. Twitter API is No Longer Free, Now What? - New Target, Inc., accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.newtarget.com/web-insights-blog/twitter-api/
26. Twitter API Changes Set to Disrupt Public Interest Research | TechPolicy.Press, accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.techpolicy.press/twitter-api-changes-set-to-disrupt-public-interest-research/
27. Understanding the Recent Changes to Twitter API: A complete guide - Blaze, accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.withblaze.app/blog/understanding-the-recent-changes-to-twitter-api-a-complete-guide
28. Twitter API Changes: What You Need to Know About the End of Free Access | by Ade Saan, accessed September 1, 2025, https://medium.com/@asaan/twitter-api-changes-navigating-the-end-of-free-access-your-2024-guide-b9f9cf47ea79
29. Yet another platform drops Elon Musk's X after API changes - Mashable, accessed September 1, 2025, https://mashable.com/article/later-social-drops-x-twitter-support
30. Twitter Enterprise API's Pricing Could Exclude Smaller Apps - Publer, accessed September 1, 2025, https://publer.com/blog/twitter-enterprise-api-pricing/
31. Lightning Talk | How has Twitter's API changes undermined #CivicTech projects? - YouTube, accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj6NmElrHg
32. The X API Price Hike: A Blow to Indie Hackers? - We Are Founders, accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.wearefounders.uk/the-x-api-price-hike-a-blow-to-indie-hackers/
33. Twitter's Pricing is Ridiculous! : r/SaaS - Reddit, accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/SaaS/comments/1gh6qvj/twitters_pricing_is_ridiculous/
34. Data Moat: Building Competitive Edge with Proprietary Data, accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.acceldata.io/blog/how-to-build-a-data-moat-a-strategic-guide-for-modern-enterprises
35. The AI competitive advantage that Series B investors miss - Superhuman Blog, accessed September 1, 2025, https://blog.superhuman.com/ai-competitive-advantage/
36. Why Proprietary Data Will Remain the Heart of Enterprise Strategy with AI - Legitt Blog, accessed September 1, 2025, https://legittai.com/blog/proprietary-data-in-enterprise-strategy
37. eximiusvc.com, accessed September 1, 2025, https://eximiusvc.com/blogs/powerful-moats-in-ai-startups-that-attract-top-investors/#:~:text=Investor%20Perspective%20on%20Moats%20in%20AI%20Startups&text=Investors%20are%20now%20looking%20beyond,it%20into%20their%20startup's%20DNA.
38. Powerful Moats in AI Startups That Attract Top Investors - Eximius Ventures, accessed September 1, 2025, https://eximiusvc.com/blogs/powerful-moats-in-ai-startups-that-attract-top-investors/
39. Data Moats Are Dead: The New Competitive Advantages in an AI-Everything World, accessed September 1, 2025, https://liatbenzur.com/2025/07/20/data-moats-dead-new-competitive-advantages-ai/
40. The Myth of the Data Moat in Vertical AI - Unique AI, accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.unique.ai/en/blog/the-myth-of-the-data-moat-in-vertical-ai
41. The End of Software Moats: AI Reshapes Competitive Advantage - EON Tech, accessed September 1, 2025, https://eonsr.com/end-of-software-moats-ai/
42. 0x01f - AI and Startup Moats - Unzip.dev, accessed September 1, 2025, https://unzip.dev/0x01f-ai-and-startup-moats/
43. Are we in an AI bubble? A seven point checklist examines the ..., accessed September 1, 2025, https://londonlovestech.com/are-we-in-an-ai-bubble-a-seven-point-checklist-examines-the-evidence/
44. AI hype-to-reality gap is rattling investors: By Sergio Artimenia, accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.finextra.com/blogposting/29207/ai-hype-to-reality-gap-is-rattling-investors
45. Watching the Generative AI Hype Bubble Deflate - Ash Center, accessed September 1, 2025, https://ash.harvard.edu/resources/watching-the-generative-ai-hype-bubble-deflate/
46. AI's $600B Question - Sequoia Capital, accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.sequoiacap.com/article/ais-600b-question/
47. How AI Slop Compromises Investment Decision Making | Institutional Investor, accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/how-ai-slop-compromises-investment-decision-making
48. 3 Risky Blindspots Companies Face When Deploying Gen AI - Content Science Review, accessed September 1, 2025, https://review.content-science.com/3-risky-blindspots-deploying-gen-ai/