Microsoft, Amazon, Google court Moonshot AI despite Bessent blacklist threat
- Microsoft, Amazon, and Google are in preliminary talks with Moonshot AI for revenue-sharing deals on its Kimi K3 model.
- Moonshot seeks up to 30% of revenue from services hosted on US cloud platforms.
- Negotiations proceed despite Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent threatening sanctions over alleged IP theft.
- Kimi K3 charges $3 per million input tokens and $15 per million output tokens.
- Moonshot is preparing for a potential Hong Kong IPO with a valuation nearing $50 billion.

*this image is generated using AI for illustrative purposes only.
Microsoft Corp., Amazon.com Inc., and Alphabet Inc. are in early talks with China's Moonshot AI regarding revenue-sharing agreements for its Kimi K3 model. These negotiations occur weeks after US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned he might add the Chinese firm to a trade blacklist.
Moonshot AI is seeking up to 30% of the revenue generated by K3-related services hosted on Azure, Amazon Web Services, and Google Cloud. The discussions remain preliminary and may not result in finalized deals. Reuters reported that an agreement could mark the first major revenue-sharing deal between a Chinese AI company and a U.S. cloud provider.
Geopolitical Tensions and Accusations
The talks unfold against a backdrop of heightened friction over AI technology transfer. Treasury Secretary Bessent recently warned that Chinese AI developers could face sanctions and Entity List designations due to alleged industrial-scale distillation attacks on US models. He stated, "Open source is not open season on American IP."
US officials have accused Moonshot of using outputs from Anthropic's Fable model to build Kimi K3 and improperly acquiring restricted Nvidia Corp. chips. Moonshot denies these claims, asserting that K3's improvements stem from original changes to its underlying architecture. No sanctions have been imposed yet.
Commercial Drivers for US Cloud Providers
The interest from Microsoft, Amazon, and Google is driven by commercial opportunity. Moonshot charges $3 per million uncached input tokens and $15 per million output tokens, pricing well below many Western frontier models.
Kimi K3 features 2.8 trillion parameters, making self-hosting impractical for most customers due to computing costs. This creates a revenue stream for hyperscalers, who can sell access to the competitive model via their existing infrastructure while sharing revenue with Moonshot. Artificial Analysis rates K3 alongside OpenAI's GPT-5.5 and Anthropic's Claude Opus 4.8.
Market Sentiment and IPO Plans
Prediction-market traders on Polymarket assign Moonshot an 11% chance of holding the world's No. 1-ranked AI model by December 31, based on approximately $130,000 in trading volume. However, the firm has only a 1% chance of finishing 2026 with the best-ranked model, trailing Anthropic, xAI, Google, and OpenAI.
These cloud negotiations coincide with Moonshot's preparations for a potential Hong Kong IPO. Reports indicate the company is discussing a valuation approaching $50 billion, increasing pressure to convert K3's technical momentum into commercial revenue.
What the Numbers Show
The proposed 30% revenue share highlights Moonshot's confidence in Kimi K3's market fit despite geopolitical risks. By tying compensation to revenue rather than flat licensing fees, Moonshot aligns its earnings with adoption rates on US platforms. This structure suggests the firm believes the model's competitive pricing ($3/$15 per million tokens) and high parameter count (2.8 trillion) will drive significant usage among customers unable to host such large models independently.
How might the potential addition of Moonshot AI to the US Entity List impact existing cloud infrastructure contracts and data residency compliance for Microsoft, Amazon, and Google?
If the revenue-sharing model succeeds, will other Chinese AI firms adopt similar structures to mitigate geopolitical risk while accessing Western cloud infrastructure?
Could the success of Kimi K3 on US platforms accelerate regulatory scrutiny regarding 'industrial-scale distillation' and force stricter API usage monitoring by US model providers?


























