A green status is a claim and a screenshot is a file. Neither is evidence until an outsider can check it.
Four questions that turn an artifact into evidence: who produced it, what period, which version, can someone else repeat it.
verysafe.ai/blog/20261013_as…
Big news! We have joined @nvidia #Inception, a program designed to nurture startups revolutionizing industries with AI. We’ll be partnering with NVIDIA to accelerate our mission of delivering secure, enterprise-grade AI governance. 🛡️🤖
verysafe.ai/blog/20261006_ve…
VerySafe.AI retweeted
Announcing that we have been named an @OpenAI Select Partner.
For the work of getting AI into production where it has to survive an auditor, an ethics board, and a long operational lifecycle.
Full details: vaiyu.solutions/announcement…
VerySafe.AI retweeted
Karp's two complaints are one problem: nothing is verifiable. You can't price outcomes you can't prove, and owning GPUs doesn't govern what runs on them. The gap is verifiable compute: policy-routed, cryptographically attested runs. Building it @VerySafeAI
Man. What Palantir's CEO just said about OpenAI and Anthropic on national television is way deeper than most people realize.
Alex Karp went on national television and said every enterprise in America is furious.
Not frustrated. Furious.
They are paying for tokens that create no value. And in exchange they are handing over the most valuable thing they own.
Their data. Their workflows. Their strategy. Their competitive edge.
Here is the question he asked that nobody in Silicon Valley wants to answer.
If frontier AI models truly delivered the value the labs claim, why are they charging per token?
Every high value firm in the world prices on outcomes. Lawyers charge for the case. Bankers take a percentage of the deal. Consultants charge for the result.
OpenAI and Anthropic charge for the compute.
That is not value pricing. That is compute pricing dressed up as value pricing.
And Karp called it exactly what it is.
The moment an enterprise runs its confidential documents, customer conversations, and financial models through a frontier model, it is potentially teaching that model how to replace them.
The vendor collects the token fee. And the compounding intelligence about that business.
But here is the part nobody is connecting.
Karp did not invest in OpenAI or Anthropic. He invested in NVIDIA.
Because NVIDIA sells you the hardware and walks away.
They do not see your data. They do not cache your prompts. They do not retrain on your workflows.
You own the compute. You own the weights. You own the data pipeline. You own the alpha.
That is the full stack of control enterprises actually want.
The debate inside most companies right now is still about which frontier
model gives the best tokens per dollar.
That is the wrong question entirely.
The right question is who owns the means of production after the deal is signed.
And right now the answer for most enterprises is not them.
1/ Your AI bill is bigger than it needs to be, and not by a little. Teams duplicate the same inference 3.4× across providers because no single layer routes for cost.
🤖 Made with AI
4/ When cost is everything, route to Droplet: our distributed hardware tier at ~$0.04 / 1M tokens. That's 70 to 90% cheaper than frontier APIs, same audit chain.
5/ Cheapest compliant backend, default-on. What's your current view into per-provider AI spend: a real dashboard, or guesswork? → @VerySafeAI
Less than 1% of enterprise AI calls land in a tamper-evident audit chain today.
We sign 100% of them. SHA-256 + Ed25519, chained so nothing can be altered after the fact.
When a regulator says "prove it," the receipt is already there.
verysafe.ai/contact/






