Dinarian888
News • Business • Investing & Finance
🌐 ISO 20022: to March and beyond – Deutsche Bank 🌐
January 08, 2023
post photo preview

SWIFT plans to introduce a central Transaction Manager (TM) platform, which will be mandatory for all SWIFT users. This article provides an update on ISO 20022 payments standard migration so far...

The upcoming implementation of ISO 20022 in the high value payments (HVP) space is set to unlock a host of benefits for the cross-border payments industry – from improved compliance processes to the creation of innovative products and services. Deutsche Bank’s Joey Han explores how preparations are ramping up – and what we should expect as we transition into the ISO 20022 era

The origin of ISO 20022 dates back to 2004, when it was first recognised by the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) as the global payment standard of the future. Eighteen years later, this future has nearly arrived. Once Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT) and major payment market infrastructures (including T2, Fedwire/CHIPS and CHAPS) have migrated to the new standard over the next couple of years, ISO 20022 will apply to the entire spectrum of payments, including domestic, automated clearing house (ACH), real-time and high value cross-border payments.

The new standard is comprehensive in scope, flexible in nature and will act as a harmonised, global standard. This comes at a critical time for the industry, with calls for seamless and faster payments growing louder – and it is hoped that these attributes can provide the foundation for uplifted customer experience, streamlined compliance procedures, and a host of new, innovative services.

The decision to migrate HVP to ISO 20022 gave rise to a multi-year, industry-wide set of preparations – involving all key actors, from financial institutions and corporates, to clearing infrastructures and SWIFT.

Over the past few years, however, the proposed migration strateĀ­gies have, for a variety of reasons, been somewhat of a moving target. Most recently, the European Central Bank (ECB) announced what is anticipated to be final change to its strategy, with the go-live date movĀ­ing from November 2022 to March 2023 to give participants additional time to complete their testing in a stable environment. In order to align with the ECB’s revised strategy – and to ensure the implementation is as straightforward as possible – both European Banking Authority (EBA) Clearing and SWIFT announced that they would also sync up their reĀ­spective migrations. The Bank of England is scheduled to migrate in April 2023 (though a deadline extension is also being considered), followed by The Clearing House and The Federal Reserve Banks in November 2023 and March 2025 respectively.

The differences in migration timelines and scope, as well as the fact that some banks will migrate immediately, while others will wait, is introducing a host of challenges – and ultimately delaying the benefits the new, data-rich payment standard can bring. So, how are these challenges being addressed, and what are the main considerations going forward?

Full steam ahead in APAC

The migration of domestic, HVP systems in Asia Pacific (APAC) are alĀ­ready well underway. In summer 2022, several ISO 20022 migrations took place across APAC. Paving the way for the rest of the world, Thailand’s RTGS system – known as Bank of Thailand Automated High-value Transfer Network (BAHTNET) – became one of the first payment infrastructures to introduce ISO 20022 this year, along with the Malaysian RTGS (RENTAS) and the Singaporean RTGS (MEPS+). Additionally, Australia will be going live in March 2023, with a co-existence period lasting until November 2024. New Zealand will also go live at the same time.

What can we learn from the early adoption of ISO 20022? Not all migrations are created equal. When moving to ISO 20022, banks operating in multiple markets have to navigate different geographical and regulatory conditions, as well as different technical approaches. Both a phased ā€œlike-for-likeā€ approach and a ā€œbig-bangā€ approach will also impact the migration project, operations and end customer in different ways.

Also, while the rules for how to use ISO 20022 messages are based on the market practices outlined by High Value Payments Systems Plus (HVPS+) and are in line with Cross-Border Payments and Reporting Plus (CBPR+), they are still not the same in every market. Close attention is needed to spot and prepare for these subtle differences – or risk a higher volume of rejects and further issues in payments processing.

ā€œThe ISO 20022 migration is much more than just a new messaging format, it is the start of an entirely new era for paymentsā€
Joey Han, Clearing Solutions Specialist, APAC, Institutional Cash Management at Deutsche Bank

Transaction management

Though several communities are already using ISO 20022, with the upcoming changes covering correspondent banking, the significance of the move to the new standard is much more far reaching. CorĀ­respondent banking largely relates to cross-border payments, but it also includes domestic payments between correspondents – or indirect participants – and their direct participants in the domestic HVP market infrastructures.

As part of its migration, SWIFT plans to introduce a central Transaction Manager (TM) platform, which will be mandatory for all SWIFT users. The TM will orchestrate transactions end-to-end, replacing the point-to-point messaging that is currently in use. The first interbank message in the payment chain will trigger the creation the Transaction Copy, which will then be updated with each subsequent message in line with strict data integrity rules. The improvements this will bring to end-to-end transaction integrity is one of the major drivers for the introduction of the platform. The technical deployment of the TM took place in November 2022, with no payment traffic expected until May 2023.

It will also play a key role in helping financial institutions navigate SWIFT’s co-existence phase (March 2023 to November 2025) – the period in which MT and ISO 20022 messages will remain interoperable – by removing the ā€œweakest linkā€ problem and mitigating the risk of data truncation. The TM will achieve this by maintaining a complete copy of the transaction data and reinstating any data that the intermediary agent could not include in the message type (MT) message. In line with the co-existence period – and the challenges it brings – many banks, such as Deutsche Bank, have promised to maintain their MT receiving capabilities throughout the entire co-existence period.Ā 

A while longer to wait

Though the TM will be a great asset to the industry, it will not be the silver bullet from day one. Before the full benefits of the TM can be unlocked, there will be a short period where it will not process any bank traffic and the processing rules will not be applied. This means that when the CBPR+ messages go-live in March 2023, and the first financial institutions begin to process data-rich ISO 20022 payments, the TM rules will not be apĀ­plied to these transactions.

With TM functionality not expected to be offered until May 2023, end-to-end preservation of rich data will not be guaranteed on any mesĀ­sages until then. Because of this, many financial institutions – including Deutsche Bank – are recommending that market participants avoid using the enriched data during the first few months of the migration phase to help reduce and mitigate any possibility of data truncation. This is in line with recommendations from the Payments Market Practice Group (PMPG).

From May 2023, the TM is scheduled to go through a three-stage, build-up approach to ensure platform stability and mitigate concentraĀ­tion risk. Over the course of the build-up period, SWIFT will be closely monitoring the payment channels and watching for high levels of traffic. If, at any particular time, an extraordinarily high volume of messages was detected, SWIFT would be able to react and help reduce the number of payments being routed through the TM by introducing additional routing criteria. Under current plans, SWIFT aims to achieve this by broadening or shortening the unique end-to-end transaction reference (UETR) range, as required. For instance, if a UETR range is limited to 1A-10, this means that only transactions with a UETR that includes the last two characters from this range will be routed via the TM.

Translation and truncation

SWIFT’s in-flow translation will act as a central translation engine to supĀ­port banks already using ISO 20022, as well as those that continue to use MT messages. ISO 20022 messages will be translated to MT and delivered as multi-format (ISO 20022 with embedded translated MT) messages. By translating ISO 20022 messages to the MT equivalent and delivering both formats to the receiver, the tool will play a critical role in supporting the co-existence phase, as well as compliance processes. A non-ISO 20022 enabled institution, for example, will use the ISO 20022 format to perform the necessary compliance due diligence, and use the MT format for processing.

But that is not to say there won’t still be issues with truncation. If a non- ISO 20022 enabled institution is acting as an intermediary in a transaction, it will not be able to send on the rich ISO 2022 data it receives – and will instead send on a truncated MT message.

There are two main types of truncations: those that are indicated by a ā€œ+ā€ in the body of the truncated messages (for ISO elements with direct MT equivalents), and those that aren’t (for ISO elements without direct MT equivalents). In the latter case, the elements unique to ISO will be mapped into the non-equivalent elements in fields 70 and 72. If the available space in these fields were filled, the elements of a lower translation priority would be dropped from the message.

The in-flow translation will, therefore, be particularly important during the first few months of the migration. With the TM not fully operational by until May 2023, the in-flow translation will provide a much-needed additional layer of protection. The translation report – that comes with each translated message – will identify instances of truncation, as well as provide detailed information on the translated MT. Where truncation is identified, CBPR+ has provided a standard, global template to be used for additional data requests.

Carry on testing

With the migration now in sight, what is left to do? Many of our clients have been reaching out to us asking about the possibilities of testing. In this respect, we have been as accommodating as possible regarding bilateral tests. And while it is clearly not feasible to test with every client, we have also taken steps to facilitate self-service activities.

For example, Deutsche Bank recently launched the DB Institutional Cash Management (ICM) Portal on SWIFT MyStandards. The portal aims to provide ICM usage guidelines (UGs) for pacs.008, pacs.009 and pacs.009COV, which are based on CBPR+ and enriched with Deutsche Bank annotations. These can be used as the basis for any testing activity on MyStandards.

As the deadline approaches, it is worth remembering the reason these efforts are being made. The ISO 20022 migration is much more than just a new messaging format, it is the start of an entirely new era for payments. It is a huge opportunity to fundamentally reassess and greatly improve existing business models and solutions. In doing so, it will help the payments community meet the changing needs of their clients – both now and in the future.

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
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
September 12, 2026
In the movie 'The Matrix', Neo's passport has an expiration date set to 9/11/2001

It's pure coincidence, I'm sure. šŸ˜‰

00:00:10
🚨 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

@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 ...

šŸŒŽSchumann Resonance Today 9/13 šŸŒŽ

Right now the Schumann resonance fundamental sits at 7.83 Hz, with geomagnetic activity quiet (Kp 1.0).

Quiet Fields, Clear Signal

A Kp of 1.0 and subdued solar activity suggest a geomagnetically gentle day — conditions historically associated with steadier baseline rhythms.

post photo preview
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