Sora Is No Mora and Maybe Stablecoins Too

In this episode of Motley Fool Money, Motley Fool contributors Travis Hoium, Lou Whiteman, and Rachel Warren discuss:

• Sora shutting down
• Stablecoins in Congress
• Amazon's latest robot acquisitions

We're committed to transparency: All personal opinions in advertisements from Fools are their own. The product advertised in this episode was loaned to TMF and was returned after a test period or the product advertised in this episode was purchased by TMF. The advertiser has paid for the sponsorship of this episode.

To catch full episodes of all The Motley Fool's free podcasts, check out our podcast center. When you're ready to invest, check out this top 10 list of stocks to buy.

A full transcript is below.

This podcast was recorded on Mar 25, 2026.

Travis Hoium: OpenAI Sora is no mora. Motley Fool Money starts now. Welcome to Motley Fool Money. I'm Travis Hoium, I'm joined today by Lou Whiteman and Rachel Warren. Guys, the OpenAI news continues to come out. Lou, we talked about this a little bit yesterday with Tyler Crowe on the show. But the breaking news yesterday was that they are shutting down Sora, this social media video app that they launched not too long ago, a few months ago. But not only that, they're actually shutting down making their own video models. Rachel, this seems like a huge shift for OpenAI. They're really focusing on the enterprise side, coding, their Codex product. We talked about that. It was so striking that they have put so much time and energy, even a billion-dollar deal with Disney to try to build up this video business, one of those spaghetti at the wall kind of things, and now they're just saying, "You know what? We're done with that."

Rachel Warren: I mean, there was a lot of viral buzz around Sora, but there had also been some major challenges. Sora had this ability to generate life-like videos. I mean, it was generating unauthorized clips of people like Michael Jackson and Martin Luther King Junior. There was fierce opposition from actors unions, family estates. There was even an issue they were having with the Japanese government demanding that OpenAI stop using copyrighted anime and manga characters in Sora 2. The other point, I think, to make here is very high computational costs required to run these models, very much putting a dent, I think, in the bigger dream of OpenAI for profitability. Ahead of its reported IPO, potentially later this year, I think they're really refocusing on their upcoming SPUD model, the AI agents designed for coding and robotics. I think they're really trying to cut their losses and reallocate their resources toward autonomous AI agents, enterprise grade tools.

It is interesting, the impact on Disney. I mean, they had this three-year billion-dollar partnership that included licensing over 200 characters from Marvel, Pixar, and Star Wars. That deal is dead. Disney publicly said they respect OpenAI's decision, but there was some reports that the news caught the company off guard that maybe they didn't even hear about it until about 30 minutes after a joint meeting. A lot going on there. I mean, for Disney's part, they're now an active free agent in the AI space. They're reportedly engaging with other AI platforms to find a new partner, so that could be something interesting to see. I think now with this kind of leader out of the race, a lot of AIs are turning to alphabet and Anthropic. Anthropic has notably chosen to avoid video generators entirely. Maybe this is something that we're not going to see as much investment in the space. That remains to be seen, but it is a big shift for OpenAI from, I think, where a lot of people thought the business was going.

Travis Hoium: Lou, it does seem like they're at least focusing, and we've asked a lot of questions about how are they going to build a sustainable business model. This is maybe a step in the right direction. But the other interesting thing is, it seems like they're seeding a lot of this consumer space. If you want to make a video, go to Gemini. That was the theory even 12-18 months ago was that Alphabet and Google were going to be disrupted. This is stealing that entire area to them.

Lou Whiteman: You're giving them the focus award, Travis? Is that what you're thinking. [LAUGHTER]

Travis Hoium: Well, I mean, for now, we'll see until they go public and then start throwing spaghetti at the wall again.

Lou Whiteman: I think this is a rare moment of honesty from OpenAI, a company that loves a good press release, for all of the bluster, for all of the statements about how wonderful it is, things are not going well. We're supposed to make bold statements here, Travis. This may not come true, but I am increasingly wondering if OpenAI will ever get to an IPO. I mean, the simple math here is that they were not making money on this. As Rachel said, just the sheer bandwidth needed was too much for the revenue. Also, I think it's fair to say that they didn't see a path for revenue, which is the scarier thing and add into it the fact that even with a billion sweetener from Disney, if they would have kept going, they still couldn't justify it. I think the conclusion here is they were losing tons of money with no path to profitability. I guess credit to them for at least backing off. But look, Anthropic is doing it better. Anthropic is using a lot fewer resources to actually grab the enterprise customer, so copying them makes sense. I don't know if the consumer matters here. I think the enterprise matters for now. Anthropic is showing the way. OpenAI would be insane not to follow.

Travis Hoium: Is the theory there if you're looking at a potential IPO that hey, the consumer space is just going to be too hard. Maybe Alphabet is already there with the ad business in particular, something that OpenAI really said they didn't want to do until it was too late. If you want to build a real business and go public, you have to go after these coding opportunities, these enterprise opportunities. That's what they're focusing on, even though we've seen seemingly everything else. We had the browser shutdown, we've seen now Sora shutdown. Is even ChatPT going to be the future of the company, or is it really just Codex at this?

Lou Whiteman: Its weird to compare them to Alphabet because it's such a different set of circumstances. One, it is an established business that in part is backfilling. Let's be honest. You know, the whole it used to be Alphabet's going to get killed by OpenAI because search is going to be destroyed. Instead, they're just transitioning search, but you have an established customer base and an established business. It makes sense to stay in that business that you know so well. I think on the OpenAI side, like Anthropic starting from scratch. You need to earn customers, and the cost of acquiring a customer in almost any business is high, so you want to go after the customers with the highest payout. That's on the enterprise side. I mean, again, we'll see what becomes a consumer AI. Well, maybe we all will pay hundreds of dollars a month for these magical tools that make our lives better. There's time to fight that out if and when that happens. For now, if you are trying to build a business, you need to see your efforts generate revenue. I mean, I don't think this is unique to AI or anything like that. Clearly, the enterprise is the customer to go to get that.

Travis Hoium: I think it makes a lot of sense in a lot of ways, especially if you are trying to get to the IPO, but it's just striking how many things they've tried that were supposed to be the future of technology, the future of artificial intelligence, and they just didn't really work out. We will see where OpenAI goes. I'm sure we're going to be talking about this again soon. When we come back, we're going to talk about crypto and what the future of Stablecoins looks like. You're listening to Motley Fool Money.

ADVERTISEMENT: January of 1915, Ernest Shackleton's ship Endurance became encased in the ice in the Weddell Sea. Through determination, grit, and savvy, Shackleton would lead his men through a brutal winter, then over hundreds of miles of Antarctic ice, followed by 800 miles across some of the roughest waters in the world. It is one of the most extraordinary and inspirational journeys in the history of exploration. Find this story and many others at the Explorers Podcast available wherever you get your podcast or at explorerspodcast.com.

Travis Hoium: Welcome back to Motley Fool Money with the Hidden Gems team. Yesterday, we saw shares of Coinbase and Circle plunge. I think Circle was actually down over 20%, at least one point. The reason was Congress is pushing through this Clarity Act, which is going to set the rules for Stablecoins. One of the things that's been on the docket is crypto company is going to be able to offer rewards for holding Stablecoins, is something that Coinbase does on their platform. If you have USDC Stablecoins, they'll pay you think it's three and a half percentage points right now as a reward for that. It looks a little bit like interest on a bank account even though it's a little bit different than that. But this would make that illegal, Lou. The interesting thing here is, this would make it maybe a little less attractive to be holding those Stablecoins in an account like Coinbase. But if you do still hold them and you don't really care about that 3.5% because it's a more efficient payment method or whatever your logic is, this is actually going to make companies like Coinbase more profitable because they're not going to have that rewards expense. it's interesting reaction from the market. Stocks are down, but at least short term, Coinbase should make more money because of this ruling if it ends up passing.

Lou Whiteman: Yeah, I keep thinking of that. Life comes at you fast. Don't I see this? Sure, Travis. You know what, banks would make more money if people just put their money in without demanding interest. You're right, definitely. [LAUGHTER] But look, I don't know if this is fair, but I think it's the right call. Look, life is not fair. I'm not pro or anti Stablecoin. I'm not going to say that, but I want them to solve problems, not create problems. For all of the flat.

Travis Hoium: Do you not see the efficiency.

Lou Whiteman: Let's go there. For all of the issues we have with our US banking system and it's not perfect, it does work, and it is the model the rest of the world bases itself on. We have a good thing here. Just like in medicine, the first rule should be: do no harm. To the extent that these Stablecoins are a threat to that core system, I think regulators should be aware and trying to avoid harm to this system that serves us well. I keep saying this about Fintech, but it is so true the house always wins. Regulators are risk adverse. That's a feature in the system. It's not a flaw. If you want to come up with something better, it has to be significantly better than the status quo, because, again, the status quo, for all of our complaints about it, works really well and most of the world wishes they had the problems we.

Travis Hoium: I've been following Stablecoins for quite a while but the efficiency of moving money with Stablecoins, if you own a business and you're paying 3% for credit cards, having an alternative, which a company like Stripe does, they charge about half of the fee to take Stablecoins as they do to take credit cards. That would be the disruptive angle. Is Lou saying it's good that we're not allowing or we're not enabling some of this disruption from Stablecoins, which is going to just entrench companies like Visa and Mastercard? I guess what are your thoughts looking at that? Because that seems like the angle that Coinbase or circle is going for is, Hey, this is better. It's more efficient. But now we have regulatory capture coming in, which is always going to be a challenge.

Rachel Warren: Well, I think another way to look at it is this. We have heard some pretty lofty ambitions for what Stablecoins can do for the consumer, for big business. One of the hallmarks of adoption, one of the on ramps that enables adoption is greater regulatory environment and more regulations in place. I think that in the long term, should this legislation pass, I actually think it's a good thing. You think about companies like Coinbase. They've been leaning pretty heavily on USDC rewards to drive engagement and revenue. Obviously, this is massive regulatory red line, so to speak. You think about, you know, the Genius Act and other recent bills have really essentially been trying to treat Stablecoins more like traditional cash and less like speculative investments, which, again, is a really important element of long term adoption. I think by cutting off rewards, regulators are hoping to prevent a massive drain of deposits from traditional banks. I think that's one piece of it.

But I think it's also about the fundamental safety of the financial system. There's also the redemption factor. The new rules would mandate that Stablecoins holders get priority in case of an issuer's bankruptcy. That would finally give users some of the same protections that they would expect at a regular bank, which again, there might be individuals and entities that have hesitated to adopt Stablecoin should those regulations be in place, would be more induced to do so. I don't think this is a dead end. The free money, so to speak, via rewards might be going away, but I think that core utility of Stablecoins is still very much intact if you believe in this space. I think for the big players, this is more of a regulatory speed bump, if you will, then a dead end. They'll have to pivot their business models, focus more on transaction fees and infrastructure. But I do think that the Genie is already out of the bottle here, and I think Stablecoins are probably here today.

Travis Hoium: Lou, I do want to push back on that a little bit, because the piece that we're missing here is there is still money, billions of dollars of revenue coming into these Stablecoins companies because these assets are backed in the case of USDC, I think it's their around $80 billion market cap today. That money isn't just sitting in an empty room. It's sitting in bank accounts, it's sitting in US treasuries. That is generating interest. What they're doing with rewards, what they're calling rewards, is just returning that to the people that are actually holding the coins. Now you're saying you can't give them that money. That profit is going to go to companies like Circle and Coinbase. Is that better? I think that's the argument you guys are making is that that's better not to give the rewards out. That seems a little bit backwards.

Lou Whiteman: A couple of things. For one, we'll see how much of that money stays there for them to generate the interest if this evolves, if there isn't a use for. Rachel said they can make it up in fees. If the goal is hey, this is better than Visa and Mastercard because there's none of those pesky fees, and the fees are less, here comes the creep. Again, the house is going to win here. Visa can cut their fees in half. A lot easier than these companies will find it to [OVERLAPPING].

Travis Hoium: Visa and the banks, though. I think that's going to be the sticky part is that Visa takes a relatively small chunk of that, you know, 2.9% or so.

Lou Whiteman: But again this is much. It's always the path of least resistance is the incumbents lose a little margin versus a new system comes into place. That has happened over and over again. This isn't just about protecting Visa or protecting the banks. Right now, the system that we all benefit from works because in part, the banks have so much access to cheap deposits. To the extent that we threaten that for the sake of lower credit card fees. We are potentially causing a bank crisis down the road that will do more harm than the toll that they are extracting on the economy. You can say that this is fear mongering. You can say that it'll never happen. You can say, oh, that's the worst case. The job of regulators is to avoid worst case. It is to keep the system stable and functioning because, again, the system basically works. This may not be fair. It may not be consumer first friendly. It might mean that businesses still have to figure out what to do with credit card fees. All of that can be true, and it can still be the right decision in terms of financial stability and long term financial stability. That's the point. I mean, we can argue till we're blue in the face about fairness. We can argue about, oh, what are you doing and that. But at the end of the day, the job of the regulator is to keep the status quo working because the status quo has gotten us 200 years in pretty well. That's exactly what they're doing here. I'll be on it. Maybe I'm just old Luddite. But I appreciate that holding [OVERLAPPING].

Travis Hoium: I think you put it really well. The investors who are listening to this, who own maybe shares of banks, maybe shares of Visa, Mastercard, the credit card processing companies or like myself, I own shares of Coinbase. Think about that. What sort of disruption is there? What does disruption potentially look like, and what is holding off that disruption? Because I think you laid it out that you're arguing that the status quo is beneficial, even if it's less efficient and less consumer friendly. Does that ultimately win? That's something that the market is going to eventually figure out one way or the other. But for now, regulatory capture that rules the day. When we come back, we're going to talk about Amazon's latest robots. You're listening to Motley Fool Money. Welcome back to Motley Fool Money with the Hidden Gems team. Amazon is one of the biggest employers in the world, but it may not be for long if it keeps buying robotics companies. Last week, acquired a company called Rivr that makes a dog-looking delivery robot. This week, it added Fauna Robotics, a humanoid-ish, short, four-foot-tall humanoid robot that's supposed to be capable, safe, and fun for everyone. Also, we've got Zooks in the mix. Rachel, what is going on here? Is this a company that's going to have a billion robots and no employees a decade from now?

Rachel Warren: I mean, maybe that's the long-term vision. Rivr, they're the Swiss start-up known for their dog-like quadruped robots. They're designed to navigate stairs and drop off packages directly at your door. Then Fauna Robotics makes this humanoid-ish robot called Sprout. It's about three and a half feet tall. As you noted, when you add Zooks, obviously, the self-driving robotaxi and delivery service to the mix, this picture starts to get clear. You think about, could we be living in a world where a Zooks vehicle drives itself to your neighborhood? The Rivr dog hops out the back to climb your porch steps, and a Fauna humanoid potentially manages the human interaction or complex tasks in the warehouse. I mean, I don't think we're there quite yet, but I can't help but wonder if that's the long-term vision. Amazon for their part publicly maintains that these robots are designed to work alongside humans to make jobs smarter not harder. There's been some leaked documents that have suggested that they maybe plan to replace half a million or more human roles by the early 2030s to solve some of their labor supply shortages. We'll see what the reality is in practice. But the other thing to note here is that from these acquisitions, I mean, Amazon is also competing with, let say, Tesla's Optimus as well as other players in this race for general purpose humanoid robots. Whether they plan to sell these robots to other businesses or simply use them in the logistics machine, I think remains to be seen, it's an interesting move, to be sure.

Lou Whiteman: I put out a memo to myself stating, I want to be a trillionaire by mid 2030s. I mean, it could happen, but we'll see. I don't think you should just assume it as fact. Similarly, I'm glad Rachel mentioned the word logistics because I think about this in terms of logistics. I think not to say that this isn't important, but it's just Amazon is a different animal because of its scale, but really all Amazon is doing is what everybody's doing. In the case of logistics, Amazon was just the one company big enough to take it in house when everybody else is still delivering stuff. They're just using UPS or HomeValet. Similarly, I could give you pages and pages of various retailers, logistics companies, companies with warehouses that are partnering, experimenting with robotics. I can give you a trucking company, it used to spend $500 million a year on tech related to warehouse tech. What Amazon is doing is what everybody is doing. It's just more, I guess, in the spotlight because they're buying companies. It's just this long-term trend toward automation that's been going on since the 70s. I doubt it ends with zero employees, but if nothing else, it is the path to greater efficiency and scaling the number of employees you have. Not that this has much to do about nothing because it does over time make these companies more profitable. But I don't know if there's anything Amazon is attempting that a lot of other companies can't do through vendors like Honeywell or through their own internal efforts.

Travis Hoium: I think that's probably true. We are seeing this vision come together with Amazon, especially with the Zoox vehicle, which I left for dead for a long time. But now that that's approved, you can modify those, and there's obviously designing those in house. You could modify that to look. The crews did this a few years ago. Instead of having people inside, you just have you have a refrigerated area, maybe for groceries, you've got packages coming out. Maybe it's just one of these robots parks on the corner in my block, and a whole bunch of robots come out and deliver a handful of packages to different houses in the area. The future is going to be wild. I think that's what we can probably agree on at this point, and there's going to be more robots than there are today. Well, lots to think about for investors, but we do want to pour one out for Sora because that was one of those highly hyped products that sad to see go away. Always, people on the program may have interest in the stocks they talk about in The Motley Fool may have full-bowl recommendations for or against so don't acquire sell stocks based solely on what you hear. All personal finance content follows The Motley Fool's editorial standards and is not approved by advertisers. Advertisements are sponsored content and provided for informational purposes only. To see our full advertising disclosure, please check out our show notes. For Lou Whiteman, Rachel Warren, and Kristi Waterworth behind the glass, I'm Travis Hoium. Thanks for listening to Motley Fool Money. We'll see you tomorrow.

Lou Whiteman has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. Rachel Warren has positions in Amazon. Travis Hoium has positions in Coinbase Global and Walt Disney. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Amazon, Mastercard, Visa, and Walt Disney. The Motley Fool recommends Coinbase Global. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.