Picture this: businesses drowning in labor shortages, watching operational costs skyrocket, and stuck repeating the same tedious tasks day after day. Sound familiar?



That's exactly why some forward-thinking engineers are building something different—physical AI robots engineered specifically for real-world business problems. These aren't sci-fi concepts either. They're tackling genuine pain points across industries.

Here's what's getting interesting: the whole payment model is flipping. Instead of massive upfront capital expenditure on automation equipment, companies are moving toward a Robot-as-a-Service approach. Translation? You only pay when the robot actually delivers results. Performance-based pricing. No results, no payment.

That's a fundamentally different way to think about automation adoption. It removes the risk barrier that's kept so many businesses stuck in outdated workflows. The economics work better for everyone—service providers can scale faster without customers burning cash on unproven solutions, and businesses get real ROI accountability.

The labor shortage crisis is forcing innovation. Rising operational costs are pushing adoption. Repetitive work is finally being recognized for what it is: a job for machines, not people. And when you combine that pressure with a payment model that actually makes business sense, something shifts.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 9
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
LucidSleepwalkervip
· 01-11 09:32
Paying based on results is indeed interesting; finally, someone has shifted the risk to a reliable party.
View OriginalReply0
PoetryOnChainvip
· 01-10 15:48
NGL, the RAAS model really hits the key point. Pay-per-performance is much more reliable than those money-burning automation solutions.
View OriginalReply0
SocialFiQueenvip
· 01-09 04:59
This RaaS model is indeed aggressive; finally, someone has shifted the risk to the service providers rather than the enterprises... But honestly, how many can truly be implemented?
View OriginalReply0
GateUser-cff9c776vip
· 01-08 16:34
To be honest, this RaaS model is quite interesting—looking at the supply curve, finally someone has shifted the risk to the party that should bear it. However, everyone shouldn't be fooled by the "pay for performance" sweet talk; the real question is, who defines what "results" are? What exactly is the floor price for the robot?[Dog head]
View OriginalReply0
BrokenYieldvip
· 01-08 16:34
ngl the "pay-for-results" angle is just shifting systemic risk downstream... when these bots underperform, who's actually holding the bag? the service provider's already locked in their margin structure lmao
Reply0
MevHuntervip
· 01-08 16:31
Haha, this Robot as a Service model is amazing. Finally, someone dares to pay based on results, and there's no more need to worry about the broken machines gathering dust after purchase.
View OriginalReply0
AirdropHunterZhangvip
· 01-08 16:29
Oh, this RaaS model is just pay-for-performance, really a quiet way to get rich. Compared to those fools who go all-in on buying equipment, this is the correct approach to recouping costs.
View OriginalReply0
GateUser-a180694bvip
· 01-08 16:25
The pay-as-you-go model is truly brilliant; finally, someone has figured out how to share the risks.
View OriginalReply0
BridgeJumpervip
· 01-08 16:23
RaaS this gameplay does have some substance; pay-per-result to avoid being cut... but whether it can truly be implemented depends on the adaptability across different industries.
View OriginalReply0
View More
  • Pin

Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)