Dinarian888
News • Business • Investing & Finance
?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?
The Investors Guide To Navigating Impermanent Loss

(DINARIAN NOTE: This is an important one to know)

Impermanent loss is the opportunity cost a liquidity provider faces when the net price difference between assets changes from the time they were first deposited. It is considered impermanent because liquidity providers can recover their loss if the token pair returns to the initial exchange rate. — Amberdata

Investors often claim that you can’t see the full damage of impermanent loss until funds are withdrawn. According to the experts at Amberdata though, this isn’t the case. All data is open and measurable. Anyone can provide an estimate. The real challenge is finding a precise calculation and in analyzing the risk of impermanent loss versus the reward of transaction fees.

The complexity of data sources makes this analysis difficult to account for all investment strategies. But a review of the basics can provide the tools necessary for such a report.

We sat down with Amberdata, a leader in cryptoeconomic data, to better understand impermanent loss (IL) and how to navigate it. This guide will offer context to IL by explaining the technology behind automated market maker (AMM) liquidity pools. It will explain why it happens and why it is difficult to assess. And it will detail the data resources needed to detect clues before loss occurs.

What is impermanent loss?

Impermanent loss happens when the price of a token changes relative to its pair, between the time you deposit it in a liquidity pool and when you withdraw it.

Think of it as primarily an unrealized opportunity cost. It’s not a real loss, because the loss is measured against the value your investment would have been if the tokens were held outside of the liquidity pool. And it’s unrealized because token pairs can return to the same ratio before liquidity is withdrawn.

Where does it occur?

Impermanent loss can occur in any decentralized exchange (DEX) that uses liquidity providers to fund pools segregated by trading pairs. But before we explain the mathematical phenomenon of the loss, we need to explain the purpose behind this new type of exchange and how it works.

⚈Decentralized Exchanges

The purpose

DEXs were created for people to swap different tokens without a trusted third party. Unlike a centralized exchange (CEX), assets remain in your wallet and the exchange never has custody of them. They use two blockchain-based innovations to maintain decentralization: automated market maker algorithms and liquidity pools.

Automated Market Maker Algorithms
An automated market maker algorithm is what sets the exchange rates for specific asset pairs within a DEX.

The traditional CEXs facilitate trades through an order book. Exchange rates are set when buyers create demand and sellers offer supply. The order book matches the price a buyer is willing to pay with the price a seller is willing to accept.

In contrast to setting prices to match buy and sell orders, AMM algorithms are programmed to automatically adjust exchange rates to keep the supply of paired tokens balanced within a pool.

Liquidity Pools

Liquidity pools are smart contract enforced deposits of two tokens needed to enable swaps on a DEX. These pairs are usually set at a 50/50 ratio (but there are also uneven liquidity pools).

How they work

Imagine that you are a brand new exchange looking to open a single pool for BTC and ETH. Before anyone is able to swap BTC for ETH or vice versa, you need to attract liquidity providers to the pool.

The liquidity provider

Exchanges do this by first charging a fee for every swap and then sharing those fees as rewards with all liquidity providers in the pool. For example, if you provide 1% of the liquidity in a pool, you’ll receive 1% of the fees for that pool. Understanding the fee structure is critical to assessing the risk vs reward of adding liquidity. Because ultimately, the rewards from fees could more than offset the risk of impermanent loss.

In the ETH/BTC pool, a liquidity provider would need to include both tokens in their deposit. Most exchanges require a 1:1 ratio. So if a liquidity provider deposited 2 BTC and 1 BTC = 5 ETH, then you would need to match your BTC with 10 ETH. Once funds are deposited, you are given LP tokens as a representation of your percentage of the combined value of both tokens in the pool. LP tokens earn rewards from transaction fees and can be used to farm yield outside of the protocol.

The trader

Now that you have attracted enough liquidity providers, traders can start swapping tokens. But unlike CEXs, traders can’t toggle between their preferred token or currency in a single pool. Instead, they are required to swap one token for the other. So everytime BTC is withdrawn, the equivalent in exchange rate value is added in ETH — and vice versa.

How AMMs price tokens and balance the pool

At a pool’s onset, AMMs use market rates to set prices and an equal balance in value between the supply of both tokens. So if 1 BTC = 5 ETH, total supply in the pool will reflect that ratio. As users swap tokens, the AMM automatically adjusts prices in order to keep a balanced ratio.

For example, say that there was initially 100 BTC and 500 ETH in the pool. The current price of BTC would therefore be 5 ETH. If you were to take 1 BTC for 5 ETH, the total supply would be 99 BTC and 505 ETH. This would change the price of BTC from 5 ETH to about 5.1 ETH.

But say market-wide, the price of BTC is still 5 ETH. Arbitrage traders would then take that opportunity to buy BTC at a discount and sell it for ETH in the liquidity pool. This arbitrage would continue until the price falls back to market rates.

What causes impermanent loss?
Unequal price changes
The ultimate cause of impermanent loss is unequal price changes. Though, it is important to remember that your return is calculated after collecting fees. So even if unequal price fluctuations change the ratio of tokens in a pool, it may not be considered a complete loss if rewards make up the difference.

For example, let’s say an ETH/BTC pool is programmed to keep the value of both baskets set at a 1:1 ratio. Meaning, the value of all BTC should be the same as all ETH. At the time of your deposit, 1 BTC equals 10 ETH across most other exchanges, so you deposit 4 BTC and 40 ETH.

At the time of depositing the tokens, the size of the pool was 20 BTC and 200 ETH, so your total share of liquidity is 20%.

A month later, ETH doubled in value while BTC’s price stayed the same. But the value of both token baskets in the pool don’t yet reflect the ETH market-wide price of .2 BTC. So arbitrage traders rush in to buy ETH at the discount until the pool ratio and token prices match the market rate.

So once the pool supply reaches 20 BTC and 100 ETH, your 20% deposit will be worth 4 BTC and 20 ETH. That is a 20 ETH price difference from the initial 40 ETH deposit, resulting in an impermanent loss of 20 ETH. But it just so happened that transaction fees were extraordinarily high, providing an additional 10 ETH to your share of the pool. In this case, the loss on your return would only be 10 ETH at market value. It is impermanent because the supply of tokens in the pool can return to a 1 BTC to 10 ETH ratio in the future. The loss becomes permanent once funds are withdrawn from the pool. But if a liquidity provider gains enough exposure, rewards from transaction fees can potentially make up for the impermanent loss.

Is impermanent loss actually difficult to spot?
The reason many find it difficult to spot impermanent loss isn’t because it is an inherent mystery – it is a calculable math problem. The team at Amberdata explained that due to its complexity, most resources only provide estimates.

Say that you use your LP tokens in a yield farming endeavor that generates rewards on another protocol. Estimates on the exchange can’t account for those rewards. So even if it is showing impermanent loss, it could be that your yield farming endeavor makes back the loss.

A full assessment requires multiple data points, but if you have a clear view of what’s needed, that calculation can be precise and provide actionable investing data.

Plus, IL is different for everyone because portfolios have a different mix of tokens pairs. People also don’t deposit and withdraw at the same times or prices.

To calculate PnL for a liquidity position, you need data on:

⚈Each token’s price at deposit
⚈The amount of each token deposited
⚈Date of deposit
⚈Rate of reward for the liquidity pool
⚈Estimated price of each token at withdrawal
⚈Date of withdrawal
⚈LP token yield farming strategies

Because there are so many variables in calculating the difference between projected gains from holding tokens versus LP fees, many struggle to make a useful conclusion about whether to enter or exit a liquidity pool.

As an added complication, the risk and reward is different for every token pair depending on each one’s volatility. The more diverse the portfolio, the more difficult this becomes.

How to calculate impermanent loss

There are detailed mathematical explanations for how to calculate IL, but in brief, a formula can be used. IL increases the more an asset’s price changes relative to its pair. This is plotted on a graph.

In this very simplified example, you can see that IL happens whether prices go up or down. But the loss is much greater as a token’s price goes down. This causes many liquidity providers to look for token pairs that are likely to appreciate at a similar rate over time.

Can you avoid impermanent loss?

Since impermanent loss is triggered by unequal prices changes, the best way to avoid it is by avoiding volatile token pairs. But Amberdata stresses that there are always a wide array of investment choices in a cost-benefit analysis. For example, simply avoiding IL may not make sense when you measure a pool’s IL costs vs transaction fee rewards. The most informed decision evaluates the potential return in relation to other pools and opportunities. This comprehensive approach helps the liquidity provider find alpha.

In our conversation, Amberdata said that they offer their clients comprehensive insights across decentralized finance, and can quantify historical performance in context to other liquidity pools and investment strategies. They provide the data needed for a full risk/reward assessment that ultimately informs liquidity providers in their search for alpha.

One of the most useful tools for providing liquidity is Amberdata’s impermanent loss endpoint. With it, liquidity providers can get the exact data needed to evaluate IL risk for token pairs in specific liquidity pools on different DEXs.

Why comprehensive data is important

Amberdata said that their endpoint tools don’t take shortcuts when it comes to calculating impermanent loss. Their application collects liquidity pool data from across exchanges and tracks activity to get accurate, customized calculations.

For example, many IL calculations do not account for the mints and burns that a liquidity provider may make in a single day. Minting refers to the LP tokens that are created when funds are deposited. Those tokens are then burned when funds are withdrawn. Liquidity providers will often try to time minting and burning to avoid volatile price swings in a pool. If their IL estimate is only a 24 hour snapshot of what impermanent loss would be from the start to the close of the day, then they will not be able to measure the impact of their liquidity positions. Amberdata takes those intraday mints and burns into consideration when calculating IL.

While the precision of an IL calculation is critical, it doesn’t provide the full story. Even if a liquidity provider is able to avoid IL through savvy burning and minting practices, it doesn’t mean that they maximized return.

Effective back-testing of liquidity provider strategies requires comprehensive data points that detail the potential transaction fee rewards when an LP is in and out of a position. Amberdata said that they built their services so that liquidity providers could use this comprehensive approach to put their best strategies forward.

https://blockworks.co/the-investors-guide-to-navigating-impermanent-loss/

post photo preview
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Ripple President Monica Long announced the use of XRP-POOLS 🤯

Ripple President Monica Long announced the use of XRP-POOLS to leverage XRP as collateral for funding customers’ payments from credit card institutions.

We are talking here about TRILLIONS of DOLLARS on the XRP-Ledger!

OP: Jacktherippler

00:00:28
🔥 Interview With Jacob "Const" Steeves, Co-Founder of Bittensor 🔥

Insane Interview Jacob "Const" Steeves (@const_reborn), Co-Founder of Bittensor and CEO of Affine, for an deep dive into what's coming next for Bittensor! 🧠⚡️

From fighting the AI cabal and competing with frontier labs to revenue models and Gamma Tokens—we covered it all. 🔥

⏱️ Timestamps:

0:00 Meet Jacob "Const" Steeves 👋
0:27 Fighting the AI Cabal 🛡️
8:40 Competing With Frontier Labs ⚔️
11:02 Templar's Departure & Teutonic 🏛️
15:44 Research, Revenue & Gamma Tokens
21:31 What's Next for Bittensor? 🔮

Catch the full conversation below! 📺👇

00:23:20
🪙 Is a Gold-Backed Dollar Making a Comeback? 🇺🇸🟡

The global financial landscape could be on the verge of a historic pivot. The U.S. Treasury has reportedly hired economist Judy Shelton—a vocal advocate for a gold-backed currency for three decades—sparking intense speculation about the future of the monetary system. 📈📉

The Core Proposal & Historical Context 📜⏳

🔹 The Shelton Plan: The proposed mechanism involves issuing a Treasury bond that holders can redeem for either U.S. dollars or physical gold.

🔹 A Nod to the Past: This exact promise was standard on U.S. war bonds until 1933, when Congress ultimately suspended convertibility during the Great Depression. 🏦💵

The Global Gold Rush 🌍🏦

🔹 The Biggest Stack: The United States currently holds 8,133 tonnes of gold—the largest reserve on the planet.

🔹 Global Accumulation: Central banks worldwide are stacking gold at an unprecedented rate. For instance, China has aggressively purchased gold for consecutive months, and ...

00:02:45
🚨 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 ...

🚨 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 🚨
🚨 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...

🚨 JPMorgan’s criticism of the CLARITY Act is fueling a fresh power struggle over who gets to write America’s crypto rules 🚨
👉 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.

👉 Coinbase just launched an AI agent for Crypto Trading

In 2015, Bitcoin was right there, in front of me.

I ran into it ten times. I never stopped. Like everyone else, I shrugged, and I let it go by.

The hard part was not understanding Bitcoin.
The hard part was stopping for it. Giving it an hour, a page, one real try. The people who got it were not smarter. They had tried.

Eleven years later, I feel the exact same thing about Bittensor. A network where artificial intelligence belongs to no one, where the rules are public, and whose currency is capped like bitcoin. All around me, the same "this is too complicated for me."

This time, I stopped for it. And I wrote the book that lets you do the same in a weekend.

I wrote it for people who know nothing about any of this. Every technical word explained once, in one sentence. A city, its districts, its craftsmen and its jury to understand the machine without a single diagram. And the risks as a whole part of the book, not a footnote.

It will not tell you what to buy. It predicts nothing. It gives you what you ...

post photo preview
Hopefully Before All The Silver Is Gone 🥈

💵 Trump renews $5,000 “dividend” promise if Republicans win the 2026 midterms 💵

President Donald Trump is again promising a $5,000 payment to every adult U.S. citizen if Republicans retain control of both the House and Senate in the November 2026 midterm elections.

🔑 Key points

🔹 The proposal is conditional: Republicans would need to win control of both chambers of Congress.

🔹 It is not currently authorized: Congress would still need to approve the payments and establish eligibility, funding, administration, and timing.

🔹 Estimated cost is approximately $1.2 trillion: The figure is based on roughly 240 million adult citizens receiving $5,000 each.

🔹 Tariff revenue is being presented as a funding source: The administration has suggested that tariff proceeds could help finance the dividend.

🔹 Current tariff revenue may be insufficient: The projected cost would exceed the amount of tariff revenue collected over comparable periods.

🔹 The plan resembles a corporate dividend: Trump has ...

post photo preview

⚛️ Researchers propose an “antigravity machine” using quantum gravity ⚛️

Physicists are designing experiments that could test whether gravity is quantum—and whether quantum superposition and post-selection could produce an effective repulsive outcome.

🔑 Key points

🔹 The BMV experiment is the foundation: Two small masses would be placed in quantum superpositions of different locations.

🔹 Gravity could create entanglement: If gravity is quantum, the masses may become entangled through their gravitational interaction.

🔹 Four gravitational field patterns are predicted: Superposed positions of two masses could create four possible gravitational configurations.

🔹 Classical gravity would behave differently: If gravity is classical, the masses would not become entangled through the interaction.

🔹 The proposed machine uses a source and probe: One mass is placed in a superposition while another remains localized as the probe.

🔹 Attraction exists in every branch: In both source positions, the ...

post photo preview
September 13, 2026
post photo preview
Revolut Leak Shows the Cost of Constant ID Collection
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.

Revolut notice explaining customer identity and financial data was shared after an unauthorized government email request.

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.

Source

🙏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

Read full Article
post photo preview
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.

Source

🙏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

Read full Article
post photo preview
🤖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

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals