Futures
Access hundreds of perpetual contracts
CFD
Gold
One platform for global traditional assets
Options
Hot
Trade European-style vanilla options
Unified Account
Maximize your capital efficiency
Demo Trading
Introduction to Futures Trading
Learn the basics of futures trading
Futures Events
Join events to earn rewards
Demo Trading
Use virtual funds to practice risk-free trading
CFD
Stock CFD Derivatives
US Stocks
Access real US stocks and ETFs
HK Stocks
Trade quality Hong Kong-listed stocks
Korean Stocks
SK Hynix
Real Korean stocks and top assets
Stock Futures
High leverage, 24/7 trading
Tokenized Stocks
Backed by real stock assets
IPO Access
Unlock full access to global stock IPOs
GUSD
3.8%
Mint GUSD for Treasury RWA yields
Stocks Activities
Trade Popular Stocks and Unlock Generous Airdrops
Launch
CandyDrop
Collect candies to earn airdrops
Launchpool
Quick staking, earn potential new tokens
HODLer Airdrop
Hold GT and get massive airdrops for free
Pre-IPOs
Unlock full access to global stock IPOs
Alpha Points
Trade on-chain assets and earn airdrops
Futures Points
Earn futures points and claim airdrop rewards
Promotions
AI
Gate AI
Your all-in-one conversational AI partner
Gate AI Bot
Use Gate AI directly in your social App
GateClaw
Gate Blue Lobster, ready to go
Gate for AI Agent
AI infrastructure, Gate MCP, Skills, and CLI
Gate Skills Hub
10K+ Skills
From office tasks to trading, the all-in-one skill hub makes AI even more useful.
Business Insider’s special report tries to answer a very important question: with everyone spending massive amounts on AI, why are some companies expanding while others get stuck?
Over the past year and more, almost every company has been aggressively buying model accounts for employees, code assistants, and all kinds of AI agents. But the results have varied wildly. The “Matthew effect” in enterprise settings is starting to show: it’s easy to buy AI, but very difficult to truly turn AI into tangible productivity and business profits.
This may be driven by two radically different ways companies think about introducing AI.
Looking at current corporate AI practices, they often head toward two extremes—two forks in the road:
Defense-oriented (treating AI as a “cost meat grinder”): The core goal of these companies is “to save money.” Their logic is: “Now that we have AI, can we hire fewer people?”
However, if there’s no new business upside, the costs saved ultimately translate into nothing more than layoffs or hiring freezes. Even when employees save time with AI, they mostly end up “skimming” and getting stuck in low-efficiency, existing work.
Growth-oriented (treating AI as a “business amplifier”): These companies’ logic is completely the opposite: “Because AI helped our teams release 30% more productivity, we finally have the bandwidth to pursue new businesses we previously wanted to do but lacked the resources for!” These companies quickly “strategically reinvest” the saved time into new product development or market expansion. As business boundaries expand, the demand for organizational scale naturally rises. AI improves efficiency ➡, business boundaries expand ➡, organizational scale grows, forming a virtuous closed loop.
The deciding metrics: strategic clarity > tool adoption rate
Why do many companies spend big money subscribing to enterprise AI but hear little to no impact? A Boston Consulting Group (BCG) survey of more than ten thousand white-collar workers points to the pain point: a lack of management presence.
Although as many as 74% of frontline employees use AI every week, 66% say the company simply has not instructed them on how to use the time saved by AI. As a result, more than half of employees do not shift their efforts to work with greater strategic significance and higher added value.
The survey’s conclusion: as long as the company has clear “strategic clarity” (knowing exactly what specific business goals to solve with AI), even if employees have limited permissions to AI tools, 80% of them can still produce measurable business impact. In contrast, if a company only issues premium accounts but provides no strategic guidance, that figure drops significantly.
This difference in thinking ultimately shows up in cold, hard hiring data. According to tracking by Ramp and Revelio Labs across more than 20,000 U.S. companies, those that continue to invest in AI with sustained and intensive use (spending about $34 per person per month, far above the usual baseline of less than $3) have not only avoided large-scale layoffs—they’ve instead seen clear expansion:
Overall headcount growth of more than 10%
Growth in entry-level roles up to 12%
This breaks the stereotype that AI will directly lead to unemployment, proving there’s a strong positive correlation between high-frequency AI use and business expansion.
It must be admitted that there is some “survivorship bias” here. Companies that use AI brilliantly and then expand dramatically were often already “top students” in the market before introducing AI—larger in scale, with better technical foundations, and faster growth.
But the logic still holds: AI is hard to “reverse fate” for a company that’s stuck in a swamp, trying to survive purely by cutting costs. But for companies full of strategic ambition, AI is the most convenient rocket fuel. In the next phase of corporate competition, it won’t be about who buys more AI tokens—it will be about the capability for “Business Re-engineering”: whoever can reshape data flows first, define the clearest AI usage rules, will truly capture the upside of this era.