If I had to venture a guess (and full disclosure I’m not currently working in the space, and am not privy to conversations about actually buying this product), the 100k/m for whatever the contract duration is relatively low stakes to see if there’s utility in the data. Since there is no historical data the only real option is to buy, see if it makes a difference, and dump the product at the end of the contract if it doesn’t move the needle.

The seller is trying to push upfront sales by suggesting “These guys are doing it, and if you want to keep an edge you need to too”, (and journalists wanting to write about how corrupt this shit is are eagerly picking this up and boosting the signal by writing these sorts of articles).

In 5-6 months I suspect the consumer number to be down to 1-2 from the original batch, and those who are still paying will probably be doing so because the fact that the contract exists will probably slip through the cracks.

▲

badatnames a day ago | parent | next [-]

There is plenty of historical data, $100k is a steal for as long as situations like Iran persist. And now he is incentivised to ensure they do persist. Our fearless leader, ladies and gentlemen.

	▲	HolyLampshade a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That is only if there’s a direct correlation to price movements starting after he opens his yap on Truth Social (which, within this administration there is plenty of insider trading so the movement may pre-date the social media post). I suspect, having worked in this space for quite a while, that this specific data, faster, is useless and that there are other signals that indicate something is coming before it ends up on social media (esp TS). Yes, there is historical data about prices moving after TS posts, but what I’m arguing is paying to get it ‘faster’ may not be worth anything if you can achieve that same end (knowing something is happening) through previously established channels.
	▲	owebmaster a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> $100k is a steal Literally

▲

TheDong a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Even if it doesn't give any edge in terms of using the data, just paying money into Trump in more ways (i.e. a quasi-legal bribe) is enough of a benefit that I doubt many will drop it.

This is a lot cheaper of a bribe than i.e. the gold plaque Tim Apple gave to Trump too.

	▲	HolyLampshade a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The trading firms don’t really get anything from bribing Trump. That’s not to say hedge funds don’t want to tickle the big guy’s ego, but they don’t need “faster data” in most cases. It’s less directly beneficial than most people think it will be.
	▲	fragmede a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That thing probably only cost like $50K, so more than that.