Revolut’s mistake is the news, but the bigger problem is the growing number of companies being encouraged or required to keep copies of our most sensitive identity documents. |
Online bank Revolut has revealed that it gave out sensitive personal and financial information of an undisclosed number of its customers in response to a fake government request. The information that was handed over to an “unauthorized third party” reportedly includes names, dates of birth, occupations, addresses, phone numbers, account numbers, transaction histories (including Bitcoin), and even copies of government-issued IDs and onboarding verification selfies. Revolut claims that derived biometric face data was not. The company said that the data was handed over in response to an email that came from a real government agency’s domain, but was not actually sent or authorized by that agency. The email passed several authentication checks (SPF, DKIM, and DMARC) that are designed to establish the authenticity of a message’s origin and integrity, but do not verify the legitimacy of the legal request itself. Revolut said that it complied with the request “under the reasonable belief that it was an authentic government agency request” – and only later found out that it was not. Revolut said it later realized its mistake, blocked the email address, and reported the incident to the relevant authorities. Revolut said that only a “limited” number of its customers were affected by the data leak, and that the company’s systems were not hacked, nor was any money stolen. The story broke on September 11 when Revolut customers started receiving an email notice about a data leak, and the news was picked up by media outlets the following day.  The reason this is a recurring problem is that companies are keeping highly sensitive information about their customers’ identities, and sometimes even financial transactions, for a long time, and this data is then available to be disclosed to third parties – either in response to valid legal requests, or, as in the case of Revolut, fake ones. One reason for this is know your customer (KYC) and anti-money laundering (AML) rules. Revolut’s current UK customer privacy notice spells it out: the company generally keeps personal data of UK customers for no more than seven years after the relationship ends, and sometimes longer – for legal reasons. This means that even if you close your account, your identity documents don’t disappear. And while the incident with Revolut happened in the financial sector, it’s by no means the only one that requires customers to hand over sensitive identity information. Discord, a popular chat service, said in an October 9, 2025 security update that government ID photos of approximately 70,000 users may have been exposed after a third-party customer service provider got hacked. This was not a financial service, nor the same type of attack. But the result was similar – because the underlying business process was the same: requiring and storing sensitive identity documents. In the case of Discord, these were used to review age-related appeals. It’s hard to do anything about a copy of your old passport, or a photo of your face, or a record of your past transactions. These can be used to identify and profile you, and can be used to carry out targeted fraud. And this can happen even if the initial disclosure didn’t result in financial loss. The more companies are forced to collect and store such information, and the more of it they have, the more opportunities there are for this data to be leaked, either by the company itself or a third party it works with. That's what makes governments' push for more ID checks just to access ordinary parts of life so reckless.
🙏To support my work, Helping to keep the signal high and the noise low: 👉 Cashapp: $thedinarian 👉 Buy me a coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/thedinarian 👉 PayPal: Scan the QR code below 📲 or Click Here:
👇 Crypto Donations 👇 XRP: r9pid4yrQgs6XSFWhMZ8NkxW3gkydWNyQX |
Dinarian888
?The Dinarian exists because the truth deserves a platform. Covering cryptocurrency, blockchain technology, global agendas, emerging science, and consciousness — because everything is connected and people deserve to know it. Knowledge is power. ?
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
Dinarian888@dinarian888
July 11, 2022
The EU's Attack On Bitcoin Is An English And Math Comprehension Problem
The nomenclature used to help the layman understand Bitcoin makes lawmakers confuse it as money instead of entries in a database. We must change the terms.
A group of bitter, twisted computer illiterates in the beleaguered European Union have managed to convince the European Council that bitcoin is money, that Bitcoin wallets are actual wallets that hold actual balances of money and that they should be regulated. This is of course totally insane and an idea borne out of profound ignorance.
Since it is not possible to have a rational argument with people like this, another, better strategy of dealing with these violent types must be formulated and implemented. They’re fixated on the idea that bitcoin is money and, from the seed of this mistaken idea, a monstrous Pandora’s Box of evil has been opened.
“Bitcoin is not money. If you seek “compliance” you are asking for trouble.
People who want to see the widespread and rapid adoption of Bitcoin should not seek tight regulation and the blessing.” - Beautyon
In order to avoid the unethical attacks of the dribbling geriatrics in the United States and the delusional EU socialists, Bitcoin wallet software developers must devise a strategy to stay out of the crosshairs of the very misguided apparatchiks hell-bent on damaging Bitcoin businesses.
Every law that touches Bitcoin uses deceptive language as definition and pretext. These definitions come from ambulance chasers and not computer scientists or software developers. By re-contextualizing Bitcoin wallets, it will be possible to totally escape the onslaught of destruction being planned by the EU and U.S. legislators.
This is how you do it.
Bitcoin wallet developers, quite naturally, have centered on using the conventions of money to translate what is happening under the hood into something ordinary people can understand. There is no “coin management” or UTXO information displayed to users in the consumer grade Bitcoin wallets: BlueWallet, Wallet of Satoshi, Samourai, Pine, Phoenix, Muun; all of that is hidden away because it is of no use to consumers.
No normal person can deal with coin control, UTXOs or anything like that.
Instead, a set of familiar, easy to understand and simple conventions has been borrowed from the world of banking to make everything in Bitcoin understandable to normal people.
This is why Bitcoin wallets have taken on the appearance, nomenclature and styling of banking apps, which normally look something like these apps from Halifax and Lloyds respectively.
Bank apps from Lloyds and Halifax. Obviously bought off the shelf from the same developer.
Below is a picture of Coinbase’s phone app, which looks exactly like a bank app.
Coinbase phone app
Now Airbitz:
Airbitz dashboard
When a normal, ignorant, computer-illiterate person from the EU government looks at any Bitcoin app, they recognize it as a financial tool because it looks exactly like the financial apps they’re familiar with. As for what is going on under the hoods of these very different classes of tools, they have absolutely no clue.
They only see the surface and make all their judgements based on that alone.
This is why they reflexively conflate Bitcoin with money and think that the balance in a Bitcoin wallet is analogous to the fiat balance in a banking app.
“There is a lot of talk about using “Blockchains” to improve data integrity, but what all these solutions fail to address is what I call “The Flat Screen Dilemma”. Just because something is displayed on a screen, it does not follow that it is true.”- “The Flat Screen Dilemma”
The fact of the matter is very different, however. Bitcoin apps show you the total of the UTXOs that you have control over by virtue of you being in possession of the private key. That is a sum of UTXOs; it is not a single balance. Furthermore, that “money” is not on the device. What is on the user’s device is an app that stores a cryptographic key (a string of text) that allows you to sign messages for broadcast to the Bitcoin network. Bitcoin wallets do not contain or receive bitcoin. They simply tell you what your private key can sign for on the block chain.
By saying this, I am obviously simplifying the process. But the simplification I am presenting here is more accurate than saying a Bitcoin wallet “receives and stores bitcoin,” which never, ever happens and never has happened. It is also wrong to characterize a Bitcoin wallet as “unhosted” if it can sign a message on command of a user without reference to anyone else. There are no “wallets” in Bitcoin at all. It’s just another analogy.
Bitcoin is a database. It is not a “payment network” nor is value “sent” over it at all. There are no “wallets” either. Signed messages are what are sent to the network for inclusion in the public database. It is a database used to keep a record of who controls which outputs. It is not — and never has been — money in the conventional sense. Just because people use this database as money doesn’t mean that bitcoin is money. Just because people use the word “wallet” does not mean that there are actual “Bitcoin wallets” that hold bitcoin the way a leather wallet holds cash.
Using the word “wallet” for the sake of user experience is a convention to help make the primary function of tools understandable for users. Those conventions are a choice, not a rule and they are not a universal truth, either. That means that anyone can choose any convention or any analogy they want to compare what happens in their Bitcoin app. It is entirely possible that oil traders could use the block chain to denominate barrels of oil using barrels as measurement. Today, one barrel of oil is 0.0048 bitcoin/barrel. In an oil trader’s wallet this would be represented as “100” if the trader had one hundred barrels showing on his device as allocated to his private key in a UTXO.
In this scenario, which is totally plausible, no one would claim that “bitcoin is oil” — but maybe they would? Apparatchiks are completely insane and insane thinking is what you’d expect from them.
BlueWallet does nothing more than present the user with conventions users can understand. It is not an “unhosted wallet;” it is a block chain viewer and signing device. In no way, shape or form is a Bitcoin wallet on a mobile phone a “financial tool” of any kind. If very stupid people were to classify a signing device as a financial tool, then many other software tools would be captured by that insanity immediately. BlueWallet could pivot to the oil industry tomorrow and start calling itself “OilWallet.” The fact that people use bitcoin as money is irrelevant to bitcoin’s nature. They exchange it for goods and services and money while “OilWallet” is used to manage the exchange of barrels of oil. Common to all of this is Bitcoin is only a database; what you impute to it is up to you and has nothing to do with its fundamental nature.
WhatsApp uses exactly the same encryption techniques as Bitcoin does to authenticate users to each other. You have a pair of cryptographic keys that you use to encrypt, decrypt and sign messages so that the other person receiving your call or texts or pictures knows it came from you and could have only come from you. Users of WhatsApp are not exposed to how all of this works, in the same way that users of Bitcoin wallets are not shown the text of their private keys. The software takes care of all of that for the user and simply gives them information that is useful to them. In the case of WhatsApp, that useful information is text messages. In Bitcoin it is the sum of UTXOs that are associated with your private key that are written into the public database of the chain of blocks.
“So what is the answer?” I hear you bleating.
The answer is to call Bitcoin wallets “viewers” and “signers.”
If wallets were to rebrand as “bitcoin viewers,” to better reflect their function and distance themselves from the language of the financial industry, no one could argue that they are “financial tools” or “unhosted wallets.”
That is literally what all Bitcoin wallets do: they act as viewers or, to analogize, “Windows on the block chain,” showing you which outputs are controllable by you.
When you “send” bitcoin to someone (note how I put “send” in quotes, because bitcoin is never sent anywhere; it is not like money) you take their public key (what is called a “Bitcoin address”) and use your private key to sign a message granting control of those bitcoin to the recipient’s address.
Had the money convention been taken to the logical conclusion, Bitcoin addresses might have been called “Bitcoin account numbers.” This signing of a message has more in common with contracts than it does with money handling. This further breaks the absurd “Swiss bank account in your pocket” imagery. Sent, received, deposit, payment, account — all of these words must be abolished from Bitcoin wallet interfaces, the Bitcoin Lexicon and the overall nomenclature or the reckless, dangerous and very harmful conflation of bitcoin with money will continue.
When these messages are broadcast to be added to the public chain of blocks, either from your own full node, which is a copy of all the messages ever incorporated into the block chain, they are incorporated once the network of database administrators decide the addition should be made. “Database administrators” not “miners.” Are you starting to understand?
Mining is what companies do to extract precious metals from the earth. Precious metals like gold, which actually is money, unlike bitcoin. All of these analogies and the language from the financial world must be abolished from the lexicon of Bitcoin companies.
Once the message is accepted as legitimate by the network, your block chain viewer will be able to see that the signature you made has been added to the public record and the sum of your UTXOs will be smaller than they were before the message was sent. In the current wallet convention, this is expressed as a single number, sometimes juxtaposed with a conversion into fiat with the “approximately equal to” sign (≈). All of this is to help you understand but is not a reflection of what is really happening, or an absolute prerequisite or necessity.
Is “Liquid bitcoin” money?
There are already “watch-only” tools from Bitcoin companies like the great Samourai Wallet. Sentinel allows you to scan your keys and then whenever the chain of blocks is updated, it will show you the status of the UTXOs you control on the block chain.
By the bizarre, irrational and stupid thinking of the EU, Sentinel is an “unhosted financial services application” because it shows you a balance in bitcoin as a single number. If it is not a financial services application, why not? Are they going to claim that a tool that watches a database is a “wallet?” No one is asking these questions because they don’t understand how Bitcoin works at any level other than analogies.
Samourai Wallet Sentinel app
And don’t get me started on metal storage devices.
Is this an “unhosted Bitcoin wallet?” (Photo/Cryptosteel)
In the end, there is going to have to be a U.S. Supreme Court case to force the venal and stupid legislators to obey their oaths and stop interfering with the free speech of American software developers. Bitcoin is not money — it is speech — and no lawmaker can interfere with the speech of U.S. citizens. I explain more about this in “Why America Can’t Regulate Bitcoin”
Once this is settled by case law, the benefits for the U.S. will be enormous. All software developers working in Bitcoin will run to incorporate in the country and base their operations in Florida. No one anywhere in the EU will dare to start a Bitcoin wallet company because the ignorant apparatchiks there can’t tell the difference between a chat app and a Bitcoin app (pro tip: there is no difference).
When this happens, hundreds of billions of dollars from all over the world will flow through Bitcoin wallet companies being run from America, and those companies will be paying taxes in the U.S. The entire world’s financial infrastructure and tooling will come from America and flow through America for Uncle Sam to get his slice. America wins again.
Upon reading this, there will be many stupid people out there who will cry, “This is just semantics!” Those people don’t use Bitcoin wallets, don’t have any bitcoin, don’t run Bitcoin businesses of any kind and are as ignorant as the EU idiots and U.S. geriatrics who want to cripple Bitcoin.
When this goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, it will not be them paying the legal bill, though they will reap the world-changing benefits of software developers working with the Bitcoin database free of arbitrary, unethical and unconstitutional restrictions hampering their ability to display the UTXOs you can assign with your block chain viewer and signer.
https://www.zerohedge.com/crypto/eus-attack-bitcoin-english-and-math-comprehension-problem
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
RFK Jr: "The Pandemics are coming from labs. ALL OF THEM... Lyme, COVID, RSV, HIV & Spanish Flu came out of a vaccine lab." ☠️ 💉
"Gain-of-Function Vaccine research has created the worst plagues in our history."
"We can go down the whole list of diseases... It’s just a disaster. It’s given us no benefits. It’s given us everything from Lyme disease to Covid, and many many other diseases. RSV, which is now one of the biggest killers of children, came out of a vaccine lab."
"There’s strong evidence that even Spanish flu came from vaccine research."
"There’s plenty of evidence that HIV also came from a vaccine gain-of-function lab program. "
"The 'PANDEMICS' are coming from labs... ALL OF THEM."
00:04:00
🚀The industry has gotten incredible at teaching robots
🚀The industry has gotten incredible at teaching robots to move, sprint, and imitate body dynamics. But as Michael Parker (@bittensormax) points out in The UMI Thesis, there’s still a massive missing piece in Physical AI: Motion Understanding.
✨ Key Takeaways:
🔹Looking Human vs. Understanding Humans: Robots can execute impressive physical feats, but they still struggle to reliably read non-verbal human cues in context.
🔹Motion is Meaning: A gesture, hesitation, or glance changes completely depending on posture, timing, and surrounding context.
🔹Beyond Pixels: True intelligence requires mapping human intent and sequence across time—not just processing raw frames.
🔹The UMI Intelligence Layer: As robots enter hospitals, factories, homes, and stores, Bittensor’s SN78 @umi_sn78 UMI (Universal Motion Intelligence) aims to own the critical layer that translates human movement into real meaning.
The future of robotics isn't just about how machines move—it's about how ...
00:04:54
Follow The Money🎯
Israel Exposed launched 🤯Who Funded The Genocide🤯
A searchable database tracking pro-Israel political money in U.S. politics.
It includes:
👉 11,168 named donors + employers
👉 523 members of Congress + funding
👉 House & Senate votes on arms-transfer resolutions
👉165 candidates with network-backed fundraising pages
👉105 recipient committees linked to FEC filings
00:01:36
🚨 Chutes is being framed as a Hyperliquid-style breakout for decentralized AI inference, with live revenue, verified GPU infrastructure, and a direct challenge to centralized cloud AI 🚨
Chutes is gaining attention as a decentralized AI inference platform that claims to combine real usage, cryptographic verification, confidential computing, and open-source infrastructure into a working production system. The thesis is simple: instead of trusting Big Tech clouds with AI workloads, users get a distributed compute layer built around verification and privacy.
🔑 Key points
🔹 Chutes is live in production and reportedly scaled to more than 1,170 active GPU nodes, including large numbers of Nvidia H200s and Blackwell-class hardware.
🔹 The platform says it has processed nearly 38 trillion tokens since launch across 53 deployed applications and more than 700,000 registered users.
🔹 The team reportedly cut unprofitable usage programs, reduced total token volume, and still improved revenue efficiency, with revenue per GPU rising sharply after removing subsidized traffic.
🔹 Chutes is using post-quantum cryptography, trusted execution environments, and Nvidia confidential ...
🚨 JPMorgan’s criticism of the CLARITY Act is fueling a fresh power struggle over who gets to write America’s crypto rules 🚨
A new clash is emerging between legacy finance and crypto legislation after JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon reportedly warned that the CLARITY Act could let crypto firms offer bank-like products without bank-level oversight. The dispute is quickly turning into a larger fight over regulation, competitiveness, and who controls the future architecture of digital finance in the United States.
🔑 Key points
🔹 Jamie Dimon reportedly called the CLARITY Act a threat to the financial system, arguing it could allow crypto firms to offer yield-like products while avoiding the capital, reserve, and oversight burdens traditional banks face.
🔹 Senator Cynthia Lummis pushed back publicly, framing the issue as a global strategic race and warning that if the U.S. does not set digital asset standards, other powers will.
🔹 The core tension is whether the bill creates legitimate regulatory clarity or simply opens the door to regulatory arbitrage for crypto platforms operating outside the traditional banking...
👉 Coinbase just launched an AI agent for Crypto Trading
Custom AI assistants that print money in your sleep? 🔜
The future of Crypto x AI is about to go crazy.
👉 Here’s what you need to know:
💠 'Based Agent' enables creation of custom AI agents
💠 Users set up personalized agents in < 3 minutes
💠 Equipped w/ crypto wallet and on-chain functions
💠 Capable of completing trades, swaps, and staking
💠 Integrates with Coinbase’s SDK, OpenAI, & Replit
👉 What this means for the future of Crypto:
1. Open Access: Democratized access to advanced trading
2. Automated Txns: Complex trades + streamlined on-chain activity
3. AI Dominance: Est ~80% of crypto 👉txns done by AI agents by 2025
🚨 I personally wouldn't bet against Brian Armstrong and Jesse Pollak.
The future of cybersecurity isn't about blocking yesterday's threats—it's about defeating tomorrow's before they are even built. 🛡️⚡
The ultimate competitive edge belongs to defenders who can instantly ingest unique zero-days, automatically generate the attack strains that don't exist yet, and ship bulletproof detections to the front lines ahead of the breach. 🔮🚀
As legacy security platforms degrade under the weight of novel AI-driven threats, the world’s largest financial institutions won't scatter their bets. They will consolidate on the single provider capable of delivering this predictive defense at global scale. 🏦📊
The Engine Behind the Defense:
To stay ahead, that provider needs a constant, unrelenting supply of edge-case attacks. A decentralized subnet is the only architecture built to fuel this machine—paying a global swarm of attackers to continuously probe, create, and supply novel threats around the clock. 🌐🐝💥
Self-evolving security is ...
🚀 Navigating Bittensor yield just got effortless! 🧠⚡️
If you’ve been looking to optimize your $TAO positions across subnets without the headache of manual rebalancing or technical friction, @TrustedStake is changing the game! 💎
The new Quickstart Guide breaks down how to get seamless exposure to top-tier AI strategies:
🎯 One-Click Index Exposure: Access curated subnet baskets (Universe, Top 15, and specialized sectors) in seconds.
🛡 Non-Custodial Security: Retain complete asset control while leveraging Substrate proxy accounts—keeping your primary stash safe in cold storage.
🔄 Automated Rebalancing & Yield Optimization: Smart TWAP execution, validator selection, and root reinvestment handle the heavy lifting to maximize your alpha.
📈 Block-Level Transparency: Real-time PnL metrics and full on-chain visibility right from your dashboard.
👇Check out the full walkthrough to get started👇
...
🎯 Leadpoet’s new Arena could change how businesses find their next customers 🎯
Leadpoet is launching an Arena where AI agents compete to identify companies most likely to buy, turning sales intelligence into a measurable performance competition.
🔑 Key points
🔹 Agents compete on lead quality: Systems are evaluated on whether the prospects they identify show genuine buying intent.
🔹 Better than list generation: The goal is to find likely customers rather than produce large volumes of low-quality contacts.
🔹 Real-world signals matter: Agents can analyze company activity, business changes, hiring, technology use, market behavior, and other indicators.
🔹 Performance becomes measurable: Agents can be ranked based on precision, relevance, conversion potential, and downstream sales outcomes.
🔹 Competition can improve intelligence: Different agents may identify different signals, creating a wider search across potential customers.
🔹 Sales teams gain prioritization: Businesses ...
Revolut Leak Shows the Cost of Constant ID Collection
This Is The Income A Family Needs To Live Comfortably In Every US State
Here’s the short version of what it takes for a family of four to live comfortably in 2026 by state:
In Massachusetts, you’d need nearly $330,000 a year - the highest figure in the entire country. Only three states clear the $300,000 mark: Massachusetts, Hawaii, and California. At the other end of the spectrum, Mississippi is the most affordable at about $188,000. That’s a full $142,000 less than what you’d need in Massachusetts.
So… how much does a family of four need in your state?
This map shows the pre-tax income a household with two working adults and two kids needs to live comfortably in every U.S. state.
The numbers come from SmartAsset (as of February 2026). They’re based on the familiar 50/30/20 budget: 50% for necessities, 30% for discretionary spending, and 20% for savings or other goals. These aren’t bare-minimum survival numbers—they’re what it takes to live pretty well while still putting money aside.
And as Visual Capitalist notes, Massachusetts sits at the very top of that list. Massachusetts tops the ranking, with a family of four needing $329,555 per year to meet the 50/30/20 benchmark.
Hawaii follows at $313,165, while California ranks third at $302,682.
Rank State Income needed for family of four (2026)
- 1 - Massachusetts - $329,555
- 2 - Hawaii - $313,165
- 3 - California - $302,682
- 4 - Connecticut - $298,189
- 5 - New Jersey - $295,110
- 6 - New York - $291,533
- 7 - Colorado - $283,213
- 8 - Washington - $281,798
- 9 - Oregon - $280,966
- 10 - Vermont - $280,384
- 11 - Alaska - $272,064
- 12 - New Hampshire - $267,904
- 13 - Rhode Island - $264,659
- 14 - Minnesota - $263,078
- 15 - Maryland - $257,837
- 16 - Maine - $250,931
- 17 - Montana - $249,434
- 18 - Pennsylvania - $247,936
- 19 - Illinois - $244,109
- 20 - Virginia - $242,944
- 21 - Nevada - $242,278
- 22 - Indiana - $241,696
- 23 - Wisconsin - $238,451
- 24 - Arizona - $236,870
- 25 - Utah - $235,789
- 26 - Delaware - $228,134
- 27 - Ohio - $226,221
- 28 - Idaho - $226,054
- 29 - Florida - $223,392
- 30 - New Mexico - $223,142
- 31 - Nebraska - $223,059
- 32 - Missouri - $217,734
- 33 - Georgia - $214,573
- 34 - Michigan - $214,323
- 35 - South Carolina - $212,909
- 36 - North Carolina - $212,410
- 37 - Wyoming - $212,410
- 38 - Oklahoma - $211,910
- 39 - North Dakota - $210,496
- 40 - Kansas - $207,917
- 41 - Iowa - $204,422
- 42 - Texas - $203,424
- 43 - West Virginia - $202,592
- 44 - South Dakota - $201,760
- 45 - Alabama - $198,931
- 46 - Louisiana - $197,933
- 47 - Tennessee - $197,267
- 48 - Arkansas - $195,437
- 49 - Kentucky - $194,854
- 50 - Mississippi - $187,533
Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York aren't far behind, bringing the number of states with comfortable-income thresholds above $290,000 to six.
Colorado and Vermont Make the Top 10
As expected, many of the highest income thresholds are concentrated in the Northeast and along the West Coast.
However, Colorado has the seventh-highest threshold in the country at $283,213, ranking above Washington and Oregon.
Vermont rounds out the top 10 at $280,384, despite having the second-smallest population of any U.S. state. Meanwhile, nearby states like New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode Island all fall outside the top 10.
Just Six States Come in Below $200,000
Despite the wide range in living costs across the country, only six states have a comfortable-income threshold below $200,000 for a family of four.
Mississippi ranks lowest at $187,533, followed by Kentucky. The states of Arkansas, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Alabama also fall below the $200,000 mark.
The gap between Massachusetts and Mississippi exceeds $142,000 per year, meaning the Massachusetts benchmark is about 76% higher.
🙏To support my work, Helping to keep the signal high and the noise low:
👉 Cashapp: $thedinarian
👉 Buy me a coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/thedinarian
👉 PayPal: Scan the QR code below 📲 or Click Here:
👇 Crypto Donations Always Welcome 👇
XRP: r9pid4yrQgs6XSFWhMZ8NkxW3gkydWNyQX
XLM: GDMJF2OCHN3NNNX4T4F6POPBTXK23GTNSNQWUMIVKESTHMQM7XDYAIZT
XDC: xdcc2C02203C4f91375889d7AfADB09E207Edf809A6
🤖Can Decentralized AI Stop Big Tech from Owning the Future of Robotics?🤖
The race to build the future of robotics is no longer just about robots. It's about who controls the intelligence behind them.
Over the last three years, a small group of companies has emerged as the backbone of the AI revolution. Microsoft provides cloud infrastructure. NVIDIA supplies the chips. Google, OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, and others develop the models. Together, they control much of the compute, data, and software stack powering modern AI.
Now that AI is moving into the physical world, many are asking a bigger question:
Will these same companies end up controlling robotics too?
It's a valid concern.
The latest generation of robots relies on enormous amounts of compute, simulation, training data, and foundation models. Many robotics startups today are built on infrastructure provided by large technology companies. NVIDIA's Omniverse is becoming a key simulation environment for robot training. Microsoft Azure is powering the training of robotics foundation models. Physical AI startups increasingly depend on hyperscale cloud infrastructure to train and deploy intelligent systems. Recent partnerships across the industry show just how central Big Tech has become to robotics development.
But while Big Tech is building the highways, another movement is trying to ensure it doesn't own every destination.
That movement is decentralized AI.
Why Decentralized AI Exists
The idea behind decentralized AI is simple. Instead of a handful of companies owning the models, compute infrastructure, data pipelines, and intelligence networks, these resources are distributed across thousands of participants.
This means anyone can contribute compute, contribute models, validate outputs and can participate.
The most visible example today is the decentralized AI network known as Bittensor (@bittensor). The network has evolved into a large ecosystem of specialized AI markets called subnets, where participants compete to provide useful machine intelligence and are rewarded based on performance. Rather than relying on a single company, intelligence is generated and validated by a distributed network of miners and validators.
Think of it as an attempt to build an open marketplace for AI instead of a world where intelligence is rented from a few centralized providers.
Why This Matters for Robotics
Robotics has a unique problem. Unlike chatbots, robots operate in the physical world. They need to perceive environments, make decisions, move safely and they need to learn continuously.
The challenge is that collecting and training on real-world robotic data is incredibly expensive. That's one reason large companies have such an advantage. They can afford the compute, simulation environments, and data infrastructure needed to train robotics models at scale.
This is where decentralized systems become interesting.
Instead of one company collecting all the data and training all the models, decentralized networks could allow thousands of contributors to participate in building robotic intelligence.
Imagine a future where:
- Warehouse robots contribute operational data.
- Delivery robots contribute navigation data.
- Factory robots contribute manipulation data.
- Developers contribute models.
- Validators evaluate performance.
The resulting intelligence becomes a shared network rather than a proprietary asset.
That vision is beginning to emerge.
Bittensor's Move Toward Physical AI
While many people associate Bittensor (@bittensor) with language models and AI services, parts of the ecosystem are increasingly exploring embodied intelligence and robotics.
One example is Kinitro, a subnet focused on incentivizing the training and evaluation of embodied AI systems. The goal is to create competitive environments where developers build robotic intelligence and are rewarded based on performance.
The broader Bittensor ecosystem has also expanded into compute marketplaces, distributed inference systems, bandwidth infrastructure, and AI coordination layers that could eventually support robotics workloads. Several subnets now focus on decentralized compute, confidential inference, data transfer, and model training, critical components for future robotic systems.
In other words, the pieces are starting to appear.
Not a decentralized robot network yet.
But the infrastructure that could support one.
Beyond Bittensor: The Rise of Physical AI Networks
Bittensor isn't alone.
Across the industry, researchers and builders are experimenting with decentralized approaches to physical AI.
New research published in 2026 introduced the concept of DAO-enabled decentralized physical AI, or DePAI. The idea combines robotics, decentralized infrastructure, AI models, governance systems, and human oversight into a single framework. Instead of centralized control, robots and physical infrastructure could be coordinated through transparent rules and distributed ownership models.
At the same time, developers are exploring decentralized operating systems for robots that allow machines to communicate directly with each other and with distributed compute resources. These architectures are designed to make robotic systems more resilient and less dependent on a single cloud provider.
The goal is not simply decentralization for its own sake.
The goal is resilience.
If one server fails, the system continues.
If one company disappears, the network survives.
If one participant leaves, innovation continues.
But Here's the Reality
Decentralized AI faces the same challenge every decentralized technology faces.
Big Tech has resources. A lot of resources.
Training advanced robotics models requires enormous compute budgets, sophisticated simulation environments, access to specialized hardware, and vast amounts of real-world data.
That's why many robotics startups still partner with major cloud providers and AI companies. It's often the fastest path to deployment.
And there are legitimate concerns about whether decentralized networks can maintain quality, reliability, and security at the scale required for industrial robotics. Even researchers studying decentralized AI systems have highlighted risks around concentration, incentives, governance, and network security.
The challenge isn't just decentralizing intelligence.
It's decentralizing intelligence while maintaining performance.
That's much harder.
The Most Likely Outcome
The future probably won't be fully centralized. And it probably won't be fully decentralized either. Instead, we're likely heading toward a hybrid model.
Large technology companies will continue providing chips, cloud infrastructure, simulation platforms, and foundational research.
At the same time, decentralized AI networks will emerge as alternative coordination layers where intelligence, data, and economic value can be shared more openly.
The companies building robots may use NVIDIA hardware.
Train on Azure.
Run foundation models from OpenAI.
But they may also participate in decentralized data networks, decentralized compute markets, and decentralized intelligence protocols.
The future of robotics could end up looking less like a monopoly and more like an ecosystem.
The Bigger Question
The real question isn't whether decentralized AI can eliminate Big Tech.
It can't.
At least not anytime soon.
The real question is whether decentralized AI can prevent a future where a handful of companies control every robot, every model, every dataset, and every decision made by the machines operating around us.
As robots become workers, assistants, delivery drivers, factory operators, and even economic agents, that question becomes increasingly important.
Because the battle for the future of robotics is no longer about hardware.
It's about who owns the intelligence.
And that battle is just getting started.
🙏To support my work, Helping to keep the signal high and the noise low:
👉 Cashapp: $thedinarian
👉 Buy me a coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/thedinarian
👉 PayPal: Scan the QR code below 📲 or Click Here:
👇 Crypto Donations 👇
XRP: r9pid4yrQgs6XSFWhMZ8NkxW3gkydWNyQX
XLM: GDMJF2OCHN3NNNX4T4F6POPBTXK23GTNSNQWUMIVKESTHMQM7XDYAIZT
XDC: xdcc2C02203C4f91375889d7AfADB09E207Edf809A6
