When Will the Robot Industry Bubble Burst?

On the evening of January 4th, media outlets reported that the green channel for Yushu Technology’s A-share listing had been suspended, though the listing itself had not been stopped. In response, Yushu Technology issued a rare, strongly worded statement: they had never applied for the so-called “green channel,” and the relevant reports were inaccurate. The company’s listing work is progressing as normal.The so-called “green channel” is essentially an accelerated policy mechanism that shortens the review cycle for certain types of companies. However, it is not the same as the qualification for listing itself, and it does not mean that “being suspended” indicates the company has problems. In the statement, Yushu Technology repeatedly emphasized that they had never applied for this channel and there was no cancellation. If things proceed at the set pace, the earliest they could submit the application documents is in the fourth quarter of 2025, and related operational data will naturally be disclosed within the framework of the rules.The market, however, seems to be more concerned with another issue: Is there a bubble in the robot industry? In May of last year, Yushu Technology’s founder, Wang Xingxing, spoke about the concerns of a “bodily intelligence bubble” during an exclusive interview with Fortune in Kuala Lumpur. He said, “At this moment, robots may not have reached a real demand stage. But in 20 years, you’ll suddenly realize there’s no bubble; from the future’s perspective, ‘now’ might not have been a bubble at all. Around 2000, about 20 years ago, everyone thought the internet bubble was enormous, but now, looking back, it was never a bubble.” Wang Xingxing added.However, if we understand “bubble” as a natural phase, rather than a moral judgment, things become much clearer.

Almost every major industry undergoes a similar process before maturing. The internet, photovoltaics, new energy vehicles, and semiconductors—all industries that didn’t achieve infrastructure construction and capability leaps in a “perfectly rational” state. The influx of capital is often not due to certainty, but because of bets placed on uncertainty. The existence of a bubble itself is a screening mechanism: it amplifies mistakes while accelerating validation. The real issue is not whether there is a bubble, but rather who can stand firm after the bubble bursts.In Wang Xingxing’s view, the core issue faced by humanoid robots today is not a wrong direction but rather the inability to cross the real “critical point.” On the hardware side, there are no products that are low-cost enough, reliable enough, and ready for large-scale deployment. On the algorithm side, the data accumulation and training depth for embodied intelligence are still insufficient. This makes robots appear “not good enough” in terms of efficiency, stability, and scenario adaptation. But “not good enough” does not equal “unusable.” He used early cars and current autonomous driving as a comparison: before a technology crosses the critical threshold, it’s often “usable but imperfect.” During this stage, there is a tendency for external disappointment, but people overlook the fact that the technology is approaching a transformative point.However, beyond technology, Wang Xingxing more frequently discusses another concern. He repeatedly emphasized that his greatest worry is not competition or valuation, but the potential safety and ethical issues arising when robots are dangerously modified.

As a novel and disruptive technology carrier, robots are prone to misuse. Once an accident occurs, public opinion usually places the blame directly on the manufacturer, rather than the user or modifier. According to him, the risk does not come from the robots themselves, but from humans pushing the boundaries of technology. He always views current robots as “pure logic entities”—without desires, survival instincts, or any intention to harm humans. What we should truly be cautious about is malicious use and public misunderstanding.“The more rational the entity, the more restrained it is.” This is Wang Xingxing’s judgment about the future of AI and his fundamental attitude towards technological ethics.Yushu Technology’s “rumor-rebuttal storm” seems more like an early emotional release. The market is not just concerned with the progress of a single company’s listing, but rather using this specific event to express collective anxiety about the entire embodied intelligence sector. Capital markets can certainly choose to cool down, and regulators have the responsibility to prevent irrational expansion. But cooling down doesn’t equate to denial, nor does it mean the industry’s direction is problematic. On the contrary, it often marks the shift of an industry from the “storytelling phase” into the final clearing phase.For Yushu Technology, the listing is just a matter of time, not a question of direction. What truly decides the company’s future position is not whether it has passed a particular green channel, but whether its products will still have buyers after the bubble bursts, whether its technology remains leading, and whether its costs can continue to decrease. The bubble will burst, but the industry will stay. Embodied intelligence is destined to go through one or more bubble purges. The companies that remain may not be the loudest, but they will certainly be those who continue to treat robots as products, not symbols, and refine them amidst the noise.