👉After BNB Chain Hack, Operators Must Face Question of Decentralization👈

Dinarian888

News • Business • Investing & Finance

Lack of automated response to security incidents in crypto space must be addressed, blockchain security firm exec says

October 08, 2022

(Dinarian Note: All the World's a Stage and there are NO COINCIDENCES!
All Roads Lead To Regulation and Control by BIG One World Government and their New Technology, AI (Artificial Intelligence))

BNB Chain contacted community validators to stop incident from spreading
“Either be fully decentralized, or be centralized enough to have responsibility for responding to security incidents,” OpenZeppelin head of solutions architecture says

Following attackers exploiting Binance’s BNB Chain and withdrawing 2 million BNB, 💥the crypto industry is now grappling with questions of decentralization,💥 responses to security incidents and the prevalence of hacks.

Operators and protocols in the space must choose to become fully decentralized or be better prepared to respond to hacks, said Michael Lewellen, head of solutions architecture at blockchain security firm OpenZeppelin.

BNB Chain said in a statement Friday that the latest exploit affected BSC Token Hub — the native cross-chain bridge between BNB Beacon Chain and BNB Smart Chain.

Blockchain analytics unit Chainalysis estimated in August that $2 billion worth of crypto had been stolen across 13 cross-chain bridge hacks. Attacks on bridges accounted for 69% of total funds stolen this year, the company said at the time.

“Decentralized chains are not designed to be stopped, but by contacting community validators one by one, we were able to stop the incident from spreading,” BNB Chain said in a statement Friday.

BNB Smart Chain has 26 active validators and 44 in total, the network stated, adding that it seeks to expand the validators to boost further decentralization.

Though BNB Chain reported “the vast majority of the funds remain under control,” a spokesperson did not immediately return a request for further comment.

The latest hack is likely to spur operators to address the lack of automated response to security incidents in the crypto space, Lewellen told Blockworks.

Founded in 2015, OpenZeppelin has a platform allowing users to manage smart contract administration, such as access controls, upgrades and pausing. The company safeguards tens of billions of dollars in funds for organizations such as Coinbase and the Ethereum Foundation.

Keep reading for excerpts from Blockworks’ interview with Lewellen following the hack.

Blockworks: What do you make of this latest hack on the BNB Chain?

Lewellen: This is actually kind of a weird one, as this is a bug that was in a pre-compiled smart contract.

With Binance Chain, they were just adding a lot of features into the native protocol to support smart contracts, and that’s where the bug ended up coming in. So I think there needs to be a question of whether these sorts of changes should be in a native protocol. Maybe it should be contained within a smart contract and kept outside of the scope of the protocol because these things are risky.

We don’t know how the bug appeared inside of the protocol or its original source. But where code is — and the level of safety pieces of code have depending on what layer they’re in — need to be better.

These proof-of-authority chains and bridges kind of complicate that. It’s no longer a clear hierarchy. There’s now a lot of different layers happening in parallel that people need to be a lot more conscious of.

Blockworks: How could the response to this hack have been better?

Lewellen: While I think they responded well overall here, there’s a larger question of…was this really the best that could be done if that role was embraced.

I can’t speak to what the Binance Chain validator community does or how they coordinate or practice for these sorts of things…but they’ve obviously practiced it once now.

I’m speaking as someone from the outside, but seeing other DeFi projects respond to this as their client, I think there could be a lot more diligence and embracing the role of someone that has the ability to respond to security incidents.

And if they don’t have the role, they just need to be very up-front with that. Whether there’s a hesitancy to utilize it in some cases and maybe not in others, right now obviously it exists and I think it could be done better in the future if we learn a lot from this.

Blockworks: Can you point to any examples of an effective automated instant response to a hack?

Lewellen: We’re still in the early stages. I think we’re seeing teams that are getting better at detecting things and responding, but I think honestly these hacks have been occurring on bridges that I don’t think have been embracing that same level of due diligence.

I don’t think we’ve seen a good case for that. We know it’s possible, we’ve done the simulations at OpenZeppelin to know it’s feasible, and we’ve built tools to address it. But ironically I think the teams best prepared for that might be the teams that are least susceptible to being hacked in the first place.

The people that are being hacked the most are also the ones that I think are the least prepared to be hacked.

Blockworks: What sorts of tools or practices should be used to quickly defend against hacks?

Lewellen: What [operators] really need is something that gives you immediate notification, or basically something that is watching everything on-chain…analyzing it and then determining, “were any risks exposed here?”

If large amounts of funds get moved, it’s probably fine and part of the day-to-day operations, but if it falls out of the norm…[it’s important to have] immediate notification of that.

If you can go further and detect things that should never occur, such as money moving out of a vault that should be locked or more tokens than what should be in the token supply existing…you know something’s happening. If not getting people immediately on call to respond, maybe even automating some of the ways that you might immediately cut down some of the exit ramps…or getting your validators to be ready to respond and maybe even doing drills with them.

Blockworks: What is the key for operators as they seek to address security risks going forward?

Lewellen: I think it’s going to be becoming a little bit more honest with the role of different operators and protocols and what the administrative powers are.

With the Ethereum blockchain, the way that Binance Chain responded would not have been possible for Ethereum, but Ethereum also creates this expectation that the chain isn’t going to step in and save you.

If you’re going to have that sort of approach where you have a network where people can respond, either embrace it or move away from it. Either be fully decentralized, or be centralized enough to have responsibility for responding to security incidents. Embrace the role fully by trying to be as prepared as possible and telling node operators for your network that this will be their responsibility.

Link

Join the Dinarian888 Community

To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today

What else you may like…

Videos

Podcasts

Posts

Articles

Dinarian888@dinarian888

October 03, 2026

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

Dinarian888@dinarian888

October 03, 2026

🔥 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

Dinarian888@dinarian888

October 03, 2026

🪙 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

Dinarian888@dinarian888

May 31, 2026

🚨 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 ...

TAODAILY.IO

Chutes Is Doing to AI Inference What Hyperliquid Did to Finance - The TAO Daily

Chutes deliberately cut their GPU fleet from 1,700 H200s down to 700. They killed the free tier on OpenRouter that was driving 20 billion

🚨 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 🚨

Dinarian888@dinarian888

May 31, 2026

🚨 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...

TECHGAGED.COM

JPMorgan’s CLARITY Act Concerns Spark a New Crypto Showdown

The battle over who writes the rules of digital finance just became considerably louder. JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon has declared the CLARITY Act a direct threat t

Dinarian888@dinarian888

October 31, 2024

👉 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.

Dinarian888@dinarian888

3 hours ago

🚀 Why Buying $TAO at $300 Might Still Be Early 🚀

The narrative around Bittensor ($TAO) is shifting from speculative crypto project to fundamental infrastructure for the coming AI era. At around $300, the market is still pricing it as the former, while the evidence points to the latter.

🔑 Key Points:

🔹 It's Not Just a Token, It's a Protocol: $TAO is the native currency of a decentralized machine intelligence network. It's the incentive layer that coordinates and rewards the creation of AI models in a trustless, open marketplace. This is a new asset class: protocol-level AI capital.

🔹 The "AWS Moment" for AI: Bittensor aims to commoditize and democratize machine intelligence, just as AWS did for servers. It allows anyone with a GPU to contribute and earn, creating a decentralized intelligence grid.

🔹 The Valuation Perspective: Compared to trillion-dollar centralized AI companies, the entire Bittensor network has a fully diluted valuation of roughly $20 billion. This is a rounding ...

TAODAILY.IO

Why Buying TAO at $300 Might Still Be Early - The TAO Daily

Bittensor looks considerably strong at $300, with growing subnet revenue, expanding AI use cases, and new systems like Gamma connecting its economy.

Dinarian888@dinarian888

12 hours ago

🤖 Grok Bot adds proactive suggestions that spot work before users ask 🤖

Grok Bot can now identify tasks it may be able to handle and proactively suggest them to users through their selected Primary Bot.

🔑 Key points

🔹 Suggestions are proactive: Users no longer need to initiate every task manually.

🔹 Inbox triage can be suggested: Grok Bot may offer to review, organize, or prioritize incoming messages.

🔹 Meeting preparation can be automated: The Bot can suggest preparing agendas, briefing materials, summaries, or relevant documents.

🔹 Follow-up drafting is included: Grok Bot may identify situations where a follow-up message or response could be prepared.

🔹 Suggestions do not use the weekly quota: The proposal itself reportedly does not count against the user’s weekly usage limit.

🔹 Primary Bot selection is required: The capability becomes available when a Bot is selected as the user’s Primary Bot in the app.

🔹 Memory remains attached to the Bot: The assistant can use the ...

WWW.TAO.MEDIA

Grok Bot Adds Proactive Suggestions That Spot Work Without Being Asked

The rollout lets a user’s primary Bot surface work it can handle before being asked, with suggestions excluded from usage limits.

Dinarian888@dinarian888

12 hours ago

⚡ Chutes’ Kappa matches Llama 3.2 1B using 94% fewer training tokens ⚡

Chutes (SN64) trained Kappa across a decentralized GPU network and reportedly matched or exceeded Meta’s Llama 3.2 1B on several benchmarks using roughly 576 billion tokens instead of up to 9 trillion.

🔑 Key points

🔹 94% fewer tokens: Kappa reached comparable results to Llama 3.2 1B with a much smaller training budget.

🔹 Benchmarks included ARC-C, OpenBookQA, and TruthfulQA: Kappa reportedly matched or outperformed Llama 3.2 1B across those evaluations.

🔹 Training happened across distributed GPUs: Parallax coordinated independently operated hardware in different regions and with different performance levels.

🔹 Training costs were reportedly 90% lower: Chutes estimates Kappa’s cost per training token was significantly below conventional centralized approaches.

🔹 Hybrid architecture improves efficiency: Kappa combines traditional attention with Gated DeltaNet-2 linear attention to reduce memory and compute ...

TAODAILY.IO

Chutes (SN64)’ Kappa Matches Llama 3.2 1B on 94% Fewer Tokens - The TAO Daily

Chutes (SN64) trained Kappa on Bittensor’s decentralized GPU network, matching Llama 3.2 1B across several benchmarks with roughly 94% fewer training tokens.

Dinarian888@dinarian888

September 13, 2026

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

Dinarian888@dinarian888

August 28, 2026

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

Dinarian888@dinarian888

August 16, 2026

🤖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.

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

Available on mobile and TV devices