Dinarian888
News • Business • Investing & Finance
šŸ’„Wholesale CBDCs Evaluated by MAS and New York Fed for Cross-Border UsagešŸ’„
November 11, 2022
post photo preview

Central banks accelerate the exploration of blockchain use cases, particularly by testingĀ central bank digital currenciesĀ (CBDCs), which use permissioned blockchain networks.

Recently, the US Fed’s New York branch and Singapore’s central bank announced a joint project to explore wholesale CBDCs (wCBDCs).

NY Fed, Singapore’s MAS Conclude that wCBDCs Streamline Cross-Border Wholesale Payments

The Federal Reserve Bank of New YorkĀ announcedĀ that its New York Innovation Center (NYIC) had joined forces with the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) to merge their blockchain trial projects in an effort to test wCBDCs and see how they can improve cross-border wholesale payments that involve multiple currencies. The project merges New York Fed’s Project Cedar and MAS’ Project Ubin+, being referred to as Project Cedar Phase II x Ubin+.

The joint project will improve designs for atomic settlement of cross-border cross-currency transactions, leveraging wCBDCs as a settlement asset. The main goal is to reduce settlement risk across cross-border cross-currency transactions.

Cross-border payments play an essential role in global finance and trade, given the rapid increase in the international mobility of goods and services. The Bank of EnglandĀ reportedĀ that the total value of cross-border payments was expected to increase from about $150 trillion in 2017 to over $250 trillion by 2027. Considering that national currencies are closed-loop systems, it’s important that connections between different currencies are smooth and efficient.

Michelle Neal, Head of the Markets Group at the New York Fed, commented:

ā€œExperimentation across the central banking community is vital to leverage the full potential of digital assets and CBDCs in particular. Building off Phase I, the Project Cedar Phase II x Ubin+ collaboration will provide further visibility into the functionality and interoperability of multi-currency ledger networks utilizing their own unique designs.ā€

Leong Sing Chiong of MAS, which acts as Singapore’s central bank and the main financial watchdog, said that the project would help build capabilities for a future financial infrastructure that is open and interoperable.

Ubin+Ā is MAS’ collaborative effort with international partners to improve efficiency and reduce the risks of cross-border foreign exchange settlement by testing blockchain and interoperable wholesale digital currencies.

The central banks noted that Project Cedar Phase II x Ubin+ was a trial and not intended to advance any specific policy outcome. The results will be presented in a report to be released next year.

New York Fed Presents Phase I Results of Project Cedar

Earlier this month, the New York Fed, which is the most influential of the reserve banks,Ā released a reportĀ discussing the Phase I results of its Project Cedar.

The project, which represents a multi-phase research effort to build a technical framework for a theoretical wCBDCĀ in the Fed context, concluded that the use of a wCBDC prototype to facilitate blockchain-powered transactions could improve the speed and safety of cross-border wholesale payments.

Per von Zelowitz, Director of the NYIC, said back then:

ā€œSafe and efficient cross-border payments are critical to the functioning of the global economy. Project Cedar Phase I revealed promising applications of blockchain technology in modernizing critical payments infrastructure, and our inaugural experiment provides a strategic launch pad for further research and development regarding the future of money and payments from the U.S. perspective.ā€

During the 12-week initial phase, the US digital dollar was exchanged against experimental foreign currencies in a simulated blockchain-based environment. The forex spot trades are among the most common wholesale cross-border transactions. Today, it takes about two days for most FX spot trades to settle, but the experiment handled the trades within 15 seconds on average. The simulated blockchain allowed for atomic settlement in which both sides of the simulated transactions were settled either simultaneously or not at all, which greatly reduces various risks.

ā€œThe FX market is the largest wholesale market in the world, with daily turnover of over $7 trillion. Given the size and breadth of this global market, the potential impacts of technological innovation on its operations and processes are substantial,ā€ the report concluded.

US Government Ready for CBDCs

Fed’s Michelle Neal delivered a speech earlier this month at the Singapore FinTech Festival,Ā sayingĀ that the US Fed was not planning to issue CBDCs in the near future, although it was exploring their benefits. Neal said that CBDCs could enable a more efficient payment system, provide a foundation for further technological innovation, and facilitate faster cross-border transactions.

ā€œIt could promote financial inclusion and equity by enabling access for a broad set of consumers and foster economic growth and stability,ā€ she added.

Even though Neal confirmed that the Fed was still not decided about issuing a digital dollar, the US government is calling for it. In mid-September, the White House issuedĀ a paperĀ discussing the ā€œTechnical Possibilities for a U.S. Central Bank Digital Currency.ā€

The paper was authored by Dr. Alondra Nelson, head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Alexander Macgillivray, Principal Deputy United States Chief Technology Officer, and Nik Marda, Policy Advisor. It discussed the benefits and risks of a permissioned blockchain-based digital dollar, calling for the creation of a CBDC.

ā€œThe American people deserve to fully benefit from technological possibilities like a U.S. CBDC, while being protected from the harms it could bring,ā€ the document reads.

While the White House believes that launching its own CBDC would advance US President Joe Biden’s democratic vision, many expertsĀ are warningĀ that CBDCs offer governments unlimited power, giving them the ability to exert more control over people’s finances. CBDCs may improve transactions with the national currency, but they may not be compatible with freedom.

Link

community logo
Join the Dinarian888 Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
0
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." ā˜ ļø šŸ’‰

"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
šŸš€The industry has gotten incredible at teaching robots

šŸš€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:

šŸ”¹Looking Human vs. Understanding Humans: Robots can execute impressive physical feats, but they still struggle to reliably read non-verbal human cues in context.

šŸ”¹Motion is Meaning: A gesture, hesitation, or glance changes completely depending on posture, timing, and surrounding context.

šŸ”¹Beyond Pixels: True intelligence requires mapping human intent and sequence across time—not just processing raw frames.

šŸ”¹The 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 MoneyšŸŽÆ

Israel Exposed launched 🤯Who Funded The Genocide🤯

A searchable database tracking pro-Israel political money in U.S. politics.

It includes:

šŸ‘‰ 11,168 named donors + employers

šŸ‘‰ 523 members of Congress + funding

šŸ‘‰ House & Senate votes on arms-transfer resolutions

šŸ‘‰165 candidates with network-backed fundraising pages

šŸ‘‰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.

šŸ”‘ Key points

šŸ”¹ 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.

šŸ”¹ The platform says it has processed nearly 38 trillion tokens since launch across 53 deployed applications and more than 700,000 registered users.

šŸ”¹ 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.

šŸ”¹ 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.

šŸ”‘ Key points

šŸ”¹ 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.

šŸ”¹ 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.

šŸ”¹ 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 🚨
šŸ‘‰ Coinbase just launched an AI agent for Crypto Trading

Custom AI assistants that print money in your sleep? šŸ”œ

The future of Crypto x AI is about to go crazy.

šŸ‘‰ Here’s what you need to know:

šŸ’  'Based Agent' enables creation of custom AI agents
šŸ’  Users set up personalized agents in < 3 minutes
šŸ’  Equipped w/ crypto wallet and on-chain functions
šŸ’  Capable of completing trades, swaps, and staking
šŸ’  Integrates with Coinbase’s SDK, OpenAI, & Replit

šŸ‘‰ 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 šŸ‘‰txns done by AI agents by 2025

🚨 I personally wouldn't bet against Brian Armstrong and Jesse Pollak.

šŸ‘‰ Coinbase just launched an AI agent for Crypto Trading
🚨 BIS and JP Morgan Will Use XRPL for Something Bigger Than Payments

BIS just published Working Paper 1374 anchored official data on the XRP Ledger with Merkle proofs and then pointed to zk-proofs as the next step.

This was the exact protocol @DNAOnChain built on XRPL: private credentials on-ledger using market roots and zk-proof using $XDNA.

And today they announced rolling out the transparency layer.

JP Morgan said private credentials are the missing primitive for tokenization at scale and released a report on ā€œprivate web3.0 identity.ā€

THE EXPERIMENT PHASE IS OVER.

BIS ran the Merkle test. DNA Protocol is shipping the zk + institutional credential stack.

Zcash just ripped ~2,400% as the privacy trade of the cycle. Meanwhile, $XDNA is the privacy rail they built on XRPL for institutions while everyone was watching ZEC.

Its now coming live: https://xdna.dnaprotocol.org

OP: https://x.com/Stellar_Rippler/status/2098879322492637392

āš ļø Always DYOR before investing any šŸ’°

@ParodyJeffx made Grok post that Israel did commit a genocide in Gaza, he got SUSPENDED.

This can’t be a coincidence and I don’t understand what are the standards and why was he suspended?

This needs to be fixed.

šŸ’“ Russia expands mandatory digital-ruble rollout to banks and retailers šŸ’“

Russia is moving ahead with a phased digital-ruble rollout that requires qualifying banks and retailers to support the central bank digital currency, while individuals are not formally required to use it.

šŸ”‘ Key points

šŸ”¹ Banks must support the system: Eligible banks are required to connect to the digital-ruble platform and process customer transactions.

šŸ”¹ Retail acceptance is being phased in: Larger retailers face the earliest obligations, followed by smaller businesses as the rollout expands.

šŸ”¹ Citizens are not directly forced to use it: Individuals can generally continue using cash, bank deposits, cards, and other payment methods.

šŸ”¹ Digital-ruble wallets are separate from bank accounts: The CBDC operates through wallets connected to the central bank’s platform.

šŸ”¹ Payments are designed to work around the clock: The system is intended to support fast settlement regardless of weekends or traditional ...

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 ā€œunauthorized third partyā€ 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 ā€œunder the reasonable belief that it was an authentic government agency requestā€ – 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 ā€œlimitedā€ 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

šŸ™To support my work, Helping to keep the signal high and the noise low:

šŸ‘‰ Cashapp: $thedinarian

šŸ‘‰ Buy me a coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/thedinarian

šŸ‘‰ PayPal: Scan the QR code below šŸ“² or Click Here:Ā 

šŸ‘‡ Crypto Donations šŸ‘‡

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 fromĀ SmartAssetĀ (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 asĀ Visual CapitalistĀ notes,Ā Massachusetts sits at the very top of that list.Ā 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 theĀ second-smallest populationĀ 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 theĀ wide range in living costsĀ 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.Ā 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

šŸ™To support my work, Helping to keep the signal high and the noise low:

šŸ‘‰ Cashapp: $thedinarian

šŸ‘‰ Buy me a coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/thedinarian

šŸ‘‰ PayPal: Scan the QR code below šŸ“² or Click Here:Ā 

šŸ‘‡ Crypto Donations Always Welcome šŸ‘‡

XRP: r9pid4yrQgs6XSFWhMZ8NkxW3gkydWNyQX
XLM: GDMJF2OCHN3NNNX4T4F6POPBTXK23GTNSNQWUMIVKESTHMQM7XDYAIZT
XDC: xdcc2C02203C4f91375889d7AfADB09E207Edf809A6

Read full Article
post photo preview
šŸ¤–Can Decentralized AI Stop Big Tech from Owning the Future of Robotics?šŸ¤–
The race to build the future of robotics is no longer just about robots. It's about who controls the intelligence behind them.
Ā 
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.
Ā 
Now that AI is moving into the physical world, many are asking a bigger question:
Ā 
Will these same companies end up controlling robotics too?
Ā 
It's a valid concern.
Ā 
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.
Ā 
That movement is decentralized AI.
Ā 
Why Decentralized AI Exists
Ā 
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.
Ā 
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.
Ā 
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.
Ā 
Why This Matters for Robotics
Ā 
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.
Ā 
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.
Ā 
This is where decentralized systems become interesting.
Ā 
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.
Ā 
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.
Ā 
That vision is beginning to emerge.
Ā 
Bittensor's Move Toward Physical AI
Ā 
While many people associate Bittensor (@bittensor) with language models and AI services, parts of the ecosystem are increasingly exploring embodied intelligence and robotics.
Ā 
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.
Ā 
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.
Ā 
In other words, the pieces are starting to appear.
Ā 
Not a decentralized robot network yet.
Ā 
But the infrastructure that could support one.
Ā 
Beyond Bittensor: The Rise of Physical AI Networks
Ā 
Bittensor isn't alone.
Ā 
Across the industry, researchers and builders are experimenting with decentralized approaches to physical AI.
Ā 
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.
Ā 
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.
Ā 
The goal is not simply decentralization for its own sake.
Ā 
The goal is resilience.
Ā 
If one server fails, the system continues.
Ā 
If one company disappears, the network survives.
Ā 
If one participant leaves, innovation continues.
Ā 
But Here's the Reality
Ā 
Decentralized AI faces the same challenge every decentralized technology faces.
Ā 
Big Tech has resources. A lot of resources.
Ā 
Training advanced robotics models requires enormous compute budgets, sophisticated simulation environments, access to specialized hardware, and vast amounts of real-world data.
Ā 
That's why many robotics startups still partner with major cloud providers and AI companies. It's often the fastest path to deployment.
Ā 
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.
Ā 
The challenge isn't just decentralizing intelligence.
Ā 
It's decentralizing intelligence while maintaining performance.
Ā 
That's much harder.
Ā 
The Most Likely Outcome
Ā 
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.
Ā 
Large technology companies will continue providing chips, cloud infrastructure, simulation platforms, and foundational research.
Ā 
At the same time, decentralized AI networks will emerge as alternative coordination layers where intelligence, data, and economic value can be shared more openly.
Ā 
The companies building robots may use NVIDIA hardware.
Ā 
Train on Azure.
Ā 
Run foundation models from OpenAI.
Ā 
But they may also participate in decentralized data networks, decentralized compute markets, and decentralized intelligence protocols.
Ā 
The future of robotics could end up looking less like a monopoly and more like an ecosystem.
Ā 
The Bigger Question
Ā 
The real question isn't whether decentralized AI can eliminate Big Tech.
Ā 
It can't.
Ā 
At least not anytime soon.
Ā 
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.
Ā 
As robots become workers, assistants, delivery drivers, factory operators, and even economic agents, that question becomes increasingly important.
Ā 
Because the battle for the future of robotics is no longer about hardware.
Ā 
It's about who owns the intelligence.
Ā 
And that battle is just getting started.
Ā 
Ā 

šŸ™To support my work, Helping to keep the signal high and the noise low:

šŸ‘‰ Cashapp: $thedinarian

šŸ‘‰ Buy me a coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/thedinarian

šŸ‘‰ PayPal: Scan the QR code below šŸ“² or Click Here:Ā 

šŸ‘‡ Crypto Donations šŸ‘‡

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