Fed Notes: Examining CBDC and Wholesale Payments

TheDinarian

News • Business • Investing & Finance

September 25, 2023

NEW FED PAPER: "...the technology associated with tokenized platforms is not incompatible with existing central bank money functioning as a settlement asset." Translation: paper concludes no need for the Fed to issue a wholesale CBDC as a new settlement asset. ~Kaytlyn Long

Abstract

This paper explores whether a new settlement asset in the form of central bank money is essential for a new platform that processes wholesale payment transactions. Central bank money currently exists for wholesale transactions in the form of depository institution balances at the Federal Reserve (Reserve Banks) used for Fedwire^®Funds Service (Fedwire).² Increasing public-sector experimentation with and private-sector usage of distributed ledger technology (DLT) for the transfer of value has led many to ask whether the existing form of central bank money can be used as a settlement asset in DLT transactions. Examining the key technological characteristics and potential arrangements of tokenized distributed platforms and comparing them with existing settlement assets, transfer mechanisms, and balance sheet entries, we argue that a new settlement asset in the form of central bank money is not essential for a tokenized wholesale payment system.

Introduction

Recently there has been a renewed interest in wholesale central bank digital currency (wCBDC).³ For the purposes of this paper, wCBDC is defined as a potential new form of central bank money and a digital liability of a central bank that is only accessible by eligible entities, such as depository institutions (DIs), which purportedly could allow for new technical capabilities and arrangements in interbank payments, clearing, and settlement, including use of tokenized platforms, programmability, and composability.⁴ Since CBDC implies a new form of money, using the term "wholesale CBDC" suggests that a new central bank liability is essential to achieve these purported benefits.⁵ In order to be distinct from existing central bank money, a new central bank liability would need to have a different legal structure and be recorded on the central bank balance sheet separately from the DI balances held in master accounts.⁶ However, providing a central bank liability to DIs is not itself a novel activity since DIs currently have access to central bank money in a digital form. And in payments terms, attributes like tokenization are related to the platform, or transfer mechanism, of a payment, not to the settlement asset itself.

It is therefore important to ask whether a new settlement asset, specifically new central bank money, is essential for a new transfer mechanism for wholesale payment transactions. For the purposes of this note, we limit the question to whether a new central bank liability/new settlement asset is necessary to facilitate payments on a new technology platform. Other policy questions may have different discussions about the need for a new liability to achieve those policy objectives. This paper first provides a simple framework for thinking about central bank money and wholesale payment systems. It then provides an overview of today's wholesale payment systems that settle in central bank money. Next, it provides an explanation of the technology attributes and arrangements associated with a new payments platform to determine whether these attributes and arrangements are incompatible with the existing settlement asset. Finally, the paper examines whether a new form of central bank money (a new settlement asset) may be needed for a new wholesale payment system (a new transfer mechanism).

Simple Framework for Central Bank Money and Wholesale Payment Systems

Central Bank Money
Central bank money is a liability of the central bank. It may take the form of physical currency that is widely available to the general public or the form of digital balances held by DIs and other eligible institutions at central banks.⁷ The term "reserves" is commonly used to describe these digital balances held by DIs, and footnote 4 of the H.6 Release (Money Stock Measures) defines reserves balances as "balances held by depository institutions in master accounts and excess balance accounts at Federal Reserve Banks."⁸

From a payments perspective, central bank money in master accounts is used as a settlement asset for Federal Reserve Financial Services (FRFS).⁹ A settlement asset (the "what") is used to discharge obligations as specified by the rules and regulations for a financial market infrastructure.¹⁰ Since central bank money has neither credit nor liquidity risk, it is considered the safest form of money.¹¹ The settlement asset aspect of central bank money is important when discussing CBDC because the Federal Reserve has other liabilities on its balance sheet that do not function as settlement assets, such as overnight reverse repurchase agreements. Given the expectation that it will be able to transfer value, CBDC as a new form of central bank money should be viewed as both a liability of the central bank and as a settlement asset.

Wholesale Payments
Wholesale payments are defined by certain attributes: They are typically thought of as transactions between DIs or other eligible financial institutions and as being large-value payments. Fedwire is one example of a wholesale payment system or transfer mechanism (the "how").¹² For the purpose of this analysis, any new wholesale payments system would be transferring large-value payments between eligible institutions.¹³ Any institution that currently can access and use the existing wholesale payment system would be eligible to connect to a new wholesale payment system. However, in this analysis, institutions that do not have access to the existing system would not have access to the new system, either.¹⁴

Simple Framework for Analysis
A simple way to separate the benefits of a new central bank liability that functions as a settlement asset – the what – from the benefits of transfer mechanism or payments platform – the how – is to identify the potential states that may exist for settlement assets and platforms. As seen in table 1, there are four potential states derived from whether there is a new or existing liability that is a settlement asset and a new or existing payments platform that is used as a transfer mechanism. For simplicity, we will refer to the existing liability functioning as a settlement asset as “reserves” rather than the “balances held by DIs in master accounts.” The existing centralized wholesale payments platform considered in this analysis is Fedwire. Because the potential for new technical capabilities is a motivating factor in discussing a wCBDC, this analysis considers the new theoretical platform to be a “tokenized” distributed platform that may use new technology such as distributed ledger technology (DLT).¹⁵ However, the framework could be applied to any new wholesale transaction platform and does not require transaction ledger-keeping to be distributed or decentralized.

Table 1: Simple Framework for Analyzing Central Bank Money and Wholesale Payment Systems

The top left quadrant shows the status quo for wholesale payments with central bank money: reserves transferred on an existing platform such as Fedwire. The top right quadrant shows that keeping the existing liability/settlement asset and moving to a new platform would create a system that looks like reserves on a tokenized distributed platform. However, not until a new liability is introduced on the bottom row does the concept of wCBDC, as defined in this paper, get introduced. That new row shows two possible versions of wCBDC, one version of a new liability/settlement asset that uses a new platform and one that does not. This difference serves as a reminder that simply introducing a new liability/settlement asset does not guarantee the benefits associated with a new platform. Definitionally, within this framework, for one to actually use the term wCBDC as a means for tokenization, programmability, and composability, one would need both a new liability/settlement asset and a new payments platform (bottom right quadrant).

These distinctions are important in determining what exactly is being created and where the new potential benefits are coming from. If the benefit were solely from the liability, then a comparison of existing payments platforms, one with a new settlement asset and one using reserves, should demonstrate material differences between a transfer on the two wholesale platforms (holding other policy issues like operating hours and access constant). In other words, if benefits were from the liability, a transfer that uses a new central bank liability on Fedwire should demonstrate differences from a transfer that uses reserves on Fedwire. If, instead, benefits stem from moving to a new payments platform, what benefits does the new liability contribute? Are there reasons not to use reserves on a new payments platform? These are the questions this paper seeks to address in subsequent sections.

Defining the Status Quo: Existing Wholesale Systems with Central Bank Money

Overview
To understand whether a new form of digital central bank money is essential, it is necessary to recognize how existing wholesale transactions are processed using central bank money as a settlement asset. More than twenty Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructure jurisdictions have a large-value payment system (LVPS) that is operated by the central bank.¹⁶ Generally, an LVPS is defined as a funds transfer system that handles large-value and high-priority payments using real-time gross settlement (RTGS) or an equivalent mechanism to settle in central bank money.¹⁷ For the purpose of this analysis, we use Fedwire as our example, an RTGS system that enables participants to make payments with immediate finality through credit transfers using their balances held at Reserve Banks or intraday credit provided by those Reserve Banks (that is, by using what would be considered central bank money in either case). We focus on the settlement asset (central bank money), how the transfer of value appears on the Federal Reserve's balance sheet (accounting treatment), and the transfer mechanism itself (payments platform).

Liability/Settlement Asset: Central Bank Money
Federal Reserve Operating Circular (OC) 1 sets forth the terms under which a DI is eligible for a master account (including opening, maintaining, and terminating an account) and financial services with its Reserve Bank and describes the tools that an account holder may use to segregate, report, and settle debit and credit transaction activity in the master account. OC Section 6 explains that a master account is used to settle debit and credit transactions that the DI conducts with or through any Reserve Bank. Funds in the master account, which are assets of commercial banks and liabilities of the central bank, are the payments platform's settlement asset. Every Fedwire participant must maintain a master account at the Federal Reserve.

Federal Reserve Balance Sheet
According to the 2023 Financial Accounting Manual for Federal Reserve Banks, each Reserve Bank sets up "a general ledger and subsidiary accounts as it requires for its own purposes to prepare the balance sheet and to maintain satisfactory internal controls."¹⁸ The line item for the deposits of depository institutions is 220-025. These deposits are balances maintained by DIs in accounts at Reserve Banks. "Depository institutions may hold balances in master accounts, excess balance accounts, and temporary transitional accounts. Depository institution balances in all of these accounts are captured in this line item."¹⁹ Since the balance sheet is organized by the holder, no distinction is currently made between types of accounts.

Transfer Mechanism (Platform)
Regulation J and OC 6 consist of rules regarding funds transfers over Fedwire.²⁰ For a DI to use a wholesale payment system like Fedwire, it must maintain a master account and hold central bank money in its account at the Federal Reserve. The payment instructions are for the delivery of "central bank money," and once the payment is processed, Reserve Banks debit the account of the sending DI and credit the account of the receiving DI. Funds are ultimately settled on the books of the Federal Reserve and thus are settled in central bank money. From an operational standpoint, many of the actions that the Reserve Banks perform as sending or receiving banks in a funds transfer are accomplished by Fedwire.²¹

New "Tokenized" Distributed Payments Platform: Technology and Arrangements

To determine whether the technology associated with tokenized platforms is incompatible with reserves as a settlement asset, it is necessary to identify key characteristics of the technology. Early permissionless crypto-asset distributed value-transfer systems, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, were conceived to create a system where anyone may participate, and participants are incentivized to act in a way that is consistent with the system operating as intended. In addition, the system is designed to minimize the impact of dishonest participation. The scholarship on decentralized and distributed value-transfer systems shows that the key characteristics of these platforms for value-transfer systems include (1) strong proofs of funds ownership through asymmetric cryptography, (2) prevention of double-spend through consensus mechanisms, and (3) ability to program money to execute specified logic.²²

Strong proofs
Foundational to these technologies is the implementation of asymmetric cryptography to support a variety of purposes, but two primary uses stand out: strong proofs of funds ownership and authorization of payments.²³ This usage of cryptography in permissionless platforms differs from practices in traditional systems that represent ownership through relational databases and tables, which consequently break up authorization (for example, username and password, secure API gateways) and ownership (for example, a ledger maintained and owned by a single entity) into discrete steps.²⁴ Theoretically, in a tokenized world, whoever holds the private key owns the asset and is the sole authorizer.

Prevention of double-spend
In any value-transfer platform, double-spend (that is, the threat of spending the same funds twice) must be prevented to ensure the validity of the payment platform. The combination of technical components and economic incentives to prevent double-spend is one of the foundational aspects of a crypto-asset system because it allows for trust to be distributed across the system's design without relying on a single, centralized actor. Consequently, the distribution of trust allows for the ownership and authorization of value transfers described above to be trusted.²⁵ This trust model differs from centralized systems that are operated by a single or set of trusted entities. These arrangements do not necessarily require solutions as complex as those described above because prevention of double-spend can be ensured by the trusted operator(s) of a system.

Programming money
The third characteristic identified is the ability to program money to execute in a specific way (colloquially termed "programmability"). While this function is not necessarily new, as product offerings like automated payments are available for traditional deposit products, the implementation of programmable features within crypto-asset systems themselves are novel. One way to think about the difference between programmability in these systems versus traditional systems is to answer the question "How does each respective system provide certain guarantees?" In traditional payment systems that decouple programmable actions (for example, automated transfers at specified days), a central system operator or a group of system operators provides the guarantee that specified logic will be executed.²⁶ In contrast, successful crypto-asset ecosystems leverage cryptographic proofs for ownership, authorization, and distribution of trust to ensure specified programming logic is executed without relying on a central or group of operators to execute. If programmability is necessary for the transfer of value, there may be arguments for ensuring that it is tethered to the settlement system.²⁷

New Technology Brings New Arrangements (and New Risks)
New technology also allows for the design of new arrangements. The decentralization often associated with these technologies allows for the removal of intermediaries, and therefore new payment arrangements often accompany new technology options. As a result, who controls the ledger for decentralized systems may be very different from who controls the ledger for centralized systems.²⁸ Additionally, centralized financial systems generally do not allow just any member of the public to be able to build new products on their technology stack. By design, decentralized systems can allow, and frequently encourage, anyone to build products on top of their settlement layer. As a result, bilateral arrangements that currently exist off the payments platform may be brought on the platform through programmability.

These differences in settlement arrangements and development of the technology stack may introduce new risks into the payment system. For example, operational risks may be introduced in settlement arrangements with a greater degree of decentralization since decentralized governance associated with decentralized platforms often makes it difficult to act quickly when there are operational issues.²⁹ Moreover, lowering barriers to entry for programmability may increase the number of bilateral credit arrangements and atomically settled transactions on the platform.³⁰ However, the existing crypto-asset ecosystem has shown how new applications built on decentralized settlement platforms can introduce liquidity risk into the system.³¹

From a central bank perspective, these risks can be both to the payment systems themselves and to the reputation of the central bank. To understand scenarios where new central bank money may be essential for a new wholesale payments platform, one must understand the potential for new arrangements to introduce new risks and the ways that such risks need to be sequestered from other central bank transactions.

New Liability/Settlement Asset: Is New Central Bank Money Essential?

Having identified key technological features and potential arrangements of tokenized platforms, we now ask whether a new form of central bank money is essential as a settlement asset in these systems. Addressing that question comprises questions both of operational feasibility and of potential new risks posed to existing settlement assets and payments platforms. We argue that neither the key technological features of a tokenized platform nor the potential arrangements associated with a tokenized platform necessitate a new central bank liability.

Does the Balance Sheet Necessitate New Money?
From a technological feasibility standpoint, reserves should be able to be used on a new "tokenized" platform and a new liability would not be required to achieve the benefits of new technical capabilities. The specifications set out in OC 1 regarding debiting and crediting master accounts held at Reserve Banks should not prohibit master accounts from being used as a central bank liability for a tokenized platform that has strong guarantees, prevents double-spend, and is programmable. DIs could still hold reserves in master accounts at the Reserve Banks, which are then debited and credited with other DI master accounts through a new tokenized platform. Since the accounting line item 220-025 currently can be used for different types of accounts, including master accounts, there is no obvious reason it could not be used for recordkeeping on the general ledger.³² It is also important to note that the language of accounts, balances, and debit/credit are not inherently incompatible with the notion of tokenization and thus the data structure for accounting does not itself suggest the need for a new liability rather than a tokenization approach.³³

Does New Technology Necessitate New Money?
The same beneficial attributes DLTs can provide to a payment system, such as strong proofs of ownership and payment authorization, double-spend prevention, and programmable money, could also create new payment system risks. For example, errors in a smart contract's programming or technical flaws in a new arrangement between DIs (for example, lending arrangements) may add to or enhance credit and liquidity risks within the payment system. More specifically, if the ability to program money lowers the barrier to entry for activities that traditionally occur outside the payment system, bringing them onto the payment system may introduce more risk to the central bank.

Nevertheless, the risks associated with new technology may not create a need for a new type of central bank money. Depending on who has certain authorities within the payment system, these new risks could be mitigated. For example, contingent on its level of control, the central bank could install a risk-management practice akin to those on its other payment systems. This approach leads to the question of not what the technology is, but who has the potential to mitigate the risks that the system design may introduce. For the purposes of new risk, it seems that the technology itself would not create a need for a new version of central bank money.

Do New Arrangements Necessitate New Money?
If it is not the risks themselves, but instead the ability to mitigate the risks that is the crux of whether there is a need for a new form of money, the arrangement of the new payment system becomes vital. Some CBDC projects, both international collaborations and private-sector initiatives, envision a world where a jurisdiction's CBDC runs on a payments platform operated by a group of central banks or a private entity. Additionally, some proponents of CBDC describe the ability for the private sector to build on top of the central bank's technology stack, specifically on top of the settlement layer, as a key potential innovation that a CBDC-based financial system could bring.³⁴

Since it is technically feasible to use reserves for a new payments platform, if the Federal Reserve operates the new payments platform and prohibits private-sector development on the technology stack, the payment system could be thought of as just another digital FRFS product or service, along with Fedwire, FedACH^®, and FedNow^®.³⁵ In this case, the Federal Reserve should be able to conduct risk management and oversight in the same way that it does with its other services. As a result, reserves should be able to be used as a settlement asset on a new payments platform, and there is no compelling reason to issue a new central bank liability.

Other arrangements that include the private sector also do not dictate the need for new central bank money. In a scenario where a private-sector entity operates the payments platform, there would need to be some sort of legal or technical connection between the settlement asset and the platform that would either confer the legal designation of being a central bank liability on a private-sector platform or technically connect central bank accounting systems to a private-sector platform. This type of connectivity does not currently exist in the United States, though other jurisdictions, such as Switzerland, allow for central bank money to operate on a private platform through legal agreements.³⁶ From a technical standpoint, allowing direct private-sector system operational connectivity into reserves introduces a variety of risks, including a new vector for operational risk. Yet, the risks associated with private-sector arrangements likely still have more to do with permitting the activity itself rather than permitting a new form of money. Furthermore, to determine necessity, one would have to identify a circumstance where it not only would be permissible for private-sector activity to access the Federal Reserve balance sheet or platform but also essential that those transactions are not settled with central bank money recorded as 220-025 on the balance sheet. While there may be reasons for wanting to avoid contagion using segregated accounts, there are alternative risk-management practices available to address spillover between systems, making a new form of central bank money unnecessary from a central bank balance sheet perspective.³⁷

More Examination Needed: Possibility of Spillover Due to Private-Sector Products and Services
While new central bank money is not essential for a new payments platform, it is possible that central banks may consider whether circumstances exist where a new central bank liability may be advantageous. One potential circumstance for future examination is when a proposed platform substantially increases risk. For example, there could be a scenario where the central bank manages the new tokenized payments platform but allows institutions to build on top of the infrastructure. Programmability built into the platform may not only create lower barriers to entry for bilateral arrangements between parties, but it may also create additional credit and liquidity risks. For example, a widely used program meant to escrow funds for a particular use case could introduce liquidity risk into the system.³⁸ New credit risk could arise from lending between institutions that would not have otherwise lent but for the programmability feature. Even though DIs, and to an extent central banks, currently manage the risks of these agreements on existing payment platforms, lower barriers to entry may increase the occurrence of these transactions associated with additional risk. If reserves held in master accounts are used for both the new tokenized payments platform and existing payment services, it is possible that liquidity and credit risks could spill over from the new platform to existing ones.

Though this example relies on several assumptions that need to be further explored, it highlights the possibility that introducing private-sector products and services to central bank money could affect the risks in existing central bank payment systems. In such a scenario, the option of a new, separate form of central bank money may be considered by some central banks (though it is certainly not the only option).

Conclusion

Simply using central bank money on a new technology platform does not necessarily make it a new form of central bank money, and the technology associated with tokenized platforms is not incompatible with existing central bank money functioning as a settlement asset. Although the technological features and potential arrangements of tokenized platforms could potentially prove useful, a new settlement asset in the form of wCBDC is not essential for these platforms to transfer central bank money. Should arrangements exist that involve private-sector participants, they may increase risk across all central bank payment services and may therefore require a different type of account. New central bank money is not the only solution, since legal agreements can designate accounts on another payment system as being legally comparable to master accounts. Thus, questions surrounding the necessity of a new settlement asset specifically for wholesale payment transactions should instead be framed as questions regarding risk appetite for how the private-sector can use central bank money.

Link

The Dinarian On Locals is a labor of love that I pour my heart and soul into during my personal time. Countless hours are dedicated to delivering you the most up-to-date, unfiltered, and authentic news and information. Your support means the world to me, and I invite you to consider making a donation or becoming a dedicated supporter of this project. Any amount of XRP donations can be sent to XRP address: rqEy1PDACRg3p9RaVEZz6jU1g9RgguP91 or by scanning the QR code below and are not only appreciated but needed...

To those of you already backing my efforts, I extend my deepest gratitude. Your generosity fuels this mission, and I genuinely thank you from the depths of my heart. Together, we can continue to bring you the best results and make a significant impact in everyones future! ~D

Join the TheDinarian 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

June 14, 2026

🧬 BIG WHITE LIE BY BIG PHARMA 🧬

They don't want you healthy, But they don't want you dead either. They just want you sick!

00:01:56

Dinarian888@dinarian888

June 14, 2026

🩺🧠 Top Brain Surgeon Instantly Banned After Revealing This❗️

Dr. Jack Kruse joins me to discuss the problem with modern centralized medicine, 👉the importance of light, water, and magnetism, what we can learn from ancient health practices, how nature is innovating life, why the average American is on 12 drugs, methylene blue and light, and how humans are meant to live in the modern age.

Dr. Jack Kruse is a neurosurgeon, quantum clinician, author and the CEO of Kruse Longevity Center.

Full Video Presentation: Dr. Jack Kruse / Nourish Vermont 2017
https://youtu.be/d7qjh4BIGbc?si=EMZgfVF1Cm7kY7Zh

Continued Learning:👇📚
Optimize Your Health in the Modern World with Dr. Jack Kruse
https://youtu.be/mYMUiOMkKMM?si=OE7uQn0T2LPYhZ4Y

// OUTLINE //
0:00 - WiM Intro
1:13 - Light, Water, and Magnetism
11:32 - Light and Water
15:11 - Electromagnetism is like the Alphabet
21:27 - The Farm at Okefenokee
22:37 - Heart and Soil Supplements
23:37 - Helping Lightning Startups with In Wolf's Clothing
24:29 - Fractal Layers of Nature
26:16 - The Farce of Centralized Medicine
29:13 - What Can We...

00:20:24

Dinarian888@dinarian888

June 14, 2026

🚨Beware Authentication Scam!!!🚨

Scammers have found a new way to exploit those "Verify you're human" captchas. If a prompt asks you to type in a series of commands (like Windows + R followed by Control V), DO NOT DO IT.

This isn't a security check—it's a trick to force you to download and run malware on your device. 💻☣️

Once they have your credentials, they can:
📧 Steal your email account.
🏦 Access your banking and shopping info.

How to stay safe:
✅ Real human verification will never ask you to type in complex system commands. They'll only ask for letters, numbers, or to click on a picture.
✅ If you’ve already done this, disconnect from the internet immediately, run a malware scan from a different device, and update your passwords. 🛡️

Stay vigilant out there! 🛡️⚠️

00:02:29

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

21 hours ago

⛓️Dinarians Looking Glass 6/16⛓️

🔔 June 16 Update:

📊 Liquidation Events & Market Activity: Stay informed with the late'st insights on liquidation events and market trends, emphasizing areas of high concentration and uncovering potential trading opportunities.

📈 Cycle Top Indicator: Explore historical and real-time data on the Pi-Cycle Top Indicator, a trusted tool for identifying market peaks and troughs.💎

🔮 Bull Market Peak Indicators Recommendation by Coinglass. The recommendation of 30 bull market peak indicators.🔔

Dinarian888@dinarian888

4 hours ago

🚨 Spot HYPE ETFs near $900 million in volume as early demand signals strong institutional interest 🚨

Spot HYPE ETFs are off to a hot start, with trading volume reportedly nearing $900 million as investors pile in early. The strong launch suggests that institutions are paying attention to Hyperliquid exposure in ETF form.

🔑 Key highlights:

🔹️ Spot HYPE ETF volume has nearly reached $900 million early in its launch window.

🔹️ The trading activity is being read as a sign of strong institutional demand.

🔹️ HYPE is increasingly being viewed as a serious market asset rather than just a niche crypto trade.

🔹️ The early volume suggests ETFs can quickly become a major access point for institutional capital.

🎯 Bottom Line: HYPE ETF demand is arriving fast, and the volume suggests institutions want exposure.

https://www.theblock.co/post/404802/spot-hype-etfs-near-900-million-volume-early-demand-signals-institutional-interest

Dinarian888@dinarian888

5 hours ago

🚨 BIG NEWS: Root Reborn #2759 dropped on Github.

Simply put: $TAO's Root Reborn changes root staking from a Sell Machine into a Reinvestment Machine

Right now, root staking earns yield by taking subnet dividends and automatically selling them back into $TAO.

That means every block, root yield, creates sell pressure on the very subnet tokens that are supposed to give $TAO value.

So Root Reborn changes that.

Instead of dumping subnet alpha into $TAO, validators would choose where that root yield gets reinvested across subnets.

So the flow changes from:

Subnet Dividends = Auto-Sold into $TAO to Subnet Dividends, Reinvested Into Subnet Baskets, which Compounds Over Time.

This could change everything.

It reduces automatic sell pressure on subnets.

It creates more buy pressure for selected subnets.

It lets root yield compound instead of leaking out.

It makes validators more important again because they actively curate where capital goes.

It makes $TAO’s Risk-Free Rate cleaner because the yield is backed by ...

Dinarian888@dinarian888

June 06, 2026

How USDC Wins the Hyperliquid Deal🤔

USDC "wins" the Hyperliquid deal by securing dominant distribution and deeper integration into one of crypto's fastest-growing on-chain perpetuals platforms, in exchange for sharing most of the USDC reserve yield (up to ~90%) back with Hyperliquid.

Background on the Deal: Hyperliquid had ~$5–6B in USDC deposits (a huge chunk of total USDC supply, often cited around 7–8%). Previously, the interest/yield on those reserves (~$180–250M annually at prevailing rates) mostly flowed to Circle (issuer) and Coinbase (key partner/treasury handler), with little returning to Hyperliquid.

In late 2025, Hyperliquid ran an RFP for a native stablecoin (USDH) to capture that revenue. Native Markets won the community vote, and USDH launched as an "Aligned Quote Asset" (AQA).

In May 2026, Native Markets sold USDH brand assets to Coinbase. USDH is being sunsetted over time (with feeless conversions/redemptions to USDC/fiat), and USDC becomes the primary/official Aligned Quote Asset on Hyperliquid. Coinbase acts as the main treasury deployer; Circle handles minting, redemptions, and cross-chain (e.g., CCTP).

How USDC Wins: 🔑 Key Advantages

Massive, sticky distribution in a high-growth venue: Hyperliquid is a leading on-chain perp DEX. USDC gains preferred status as the quote asset for most trading pairs, reducing friction vs. bridging/swapping other stables. This concentrates liquidity, improves efficiency, and funnels more capital flows through USDC.

Deep on-chain integration: Builds on prior Native USDC + CCTP launches. Coinbase's involvement adds fiat on/off-ramps and institutional trust. USDC was already dominant (~95% of stables on the platform); this formalizes and expands it.
Regulatory and brand alignment: Ties USDC to a high-profile, high-volume platform at a time when USDC has gained transaction volume momentum (surpassing USDT in some months post-regulatory clarity like GENIUS). It strengthens USDC's positioning vs. USDT (which dominates on centralized venues like Binance).
Longer-term consolidation play: Analysts see this as part of stablecoin market consolidation around established players with liquidity and infrastructure. Fewer conversion layers = better efficiency for USDC.

The Trade-Off (and Hyperliquid's Win)Hyperliquid gets ~90% of the reserve yield (estimates: $135–160M+ annually at current balances, potentially scaling to $300–500M with growth), funneled into protocol revenue/HYPE buybacks. This is roughly double what they got from USDH and turns stablecoin balances into a resilient revenue stream (less volatile than trading fees).

For Circle/Coinbase, they give up a big share of yield (analysts estimate $60–80M hit to combined EBITDA) but retain/expand USDC's role as the backbone stable on a major platform. It's a strategic distribution win over building or competing with a new native coin.

🎯Bottom Line: USDC trades some margin for premier, high-volume real estate in perpetuals/DeFi trading—the exact use case driving massive on-chain dollar demand. This cements its lead in the evolving stablecoin wars, especially as platforms demand better economics. The deal highlights shifting power dynamics: big platforms now negotiate hard for yield share.

🙏 Donations Accepted, Thank You For Your Support 🙏

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support via:

💳 Stripe:
1) or visit http://thedinarian.locals.com/donate

💳 PayPal:
2) Simply scan the QR code below 📲 or Click Here:

🔗 Crypto Donations Graciously Accepted👇

XRP: r9pid4yrQgs6XSFWhMZ8NkxW3gkydWNyQX
XLM: GDMJF2OCHN3NNNX4T4F6POPBTXK23GTNSNQWUMIVKESTHMQM7XDYAIZT
XDC: xdcc2C02203C4f91375889d7AfADB09E207Edf809A6

Read full Article

Dinarian888@dinarian888

May 17, 2026

Handshake Wants to Be the Front Door to Bittensor’s Agent Economy

In this Beanstock interview, Harry Jackson of Subnet 58 (Handshake) lays out a thesis that’s worth understanding even if you never buy a single SN58 alpha token. He also explained where Bittensor’s agentic layer is heading.

We wrote the high-value distillation:

Table of Contents

The one-line thesis

Handshake wants to be the front door to the agent economy on Bittensor. The Amazon-like gateway where AI agents discover, pay for, and stack together skills from across all 128 subnets.

Why this matters now

There’s a critical distinction Harry emphasized: AI is intelligence, but agents need tooling. An LLM without payment rails, plugins, and workflow infrastructure is “a young person trying to cut a tree down with a pen knife.”
Agent-to-agent commerce is on the edge of going viral. Harry’s prediction for the tipping point: a woman in her 40s lets her agent do her shopping end-to-end (research, stock check, autonomous payment), posts it to social media, and it becomes the “four-minute mile” moment everyone copies.
Bittensor is uniquely positioned because agents don’t care about marketing or pretty UIs. They only care about best-in-class products and services. That’s exactly what Bittensor’s 128 subnets produce.

The product reality (what’s currently shipping)

Handshake is live with paying users generating a few thousand USD in revenue as of today. The business model: 2% of every transaction on the platform.
The flywheel is Amazon-like: better skills → more agents arrive → providers get distribution → more skills get added → cycle repeats.
The headline product on the way is Axiom. This is an agent that trades subnets while you sleep. Built around the realization that what the Bittensor community wants from agents isn’t generic skills; it’s more TAO. Each “hole” they find in the agent becomes a new tradeable skill on the marketplace.

The investment angles (read these carefully)

The moat is data, not distribution. Every workflow run by an agent generates failure data, success data, payment data. No outside competitor can replicate that without running the marketplace itself.
The metric Harry tells you to judge them on is revenue. Not agent count. Not user count. Revenue, which is publicly visible on-chain via the front page of their site. He’s basically inviting investors to hold him to it.

The pitch for emissions: the biggest TAM in Bittensor is the agent market, and Handshake is the most integrated subnet, meaning if Handshake wins, the subnets it routes to all win too. Bullish on agents + bullish on Bittensor = bullish on Handshake by transitive logic.

Where Harry stands on the Conviction

On the conviction upgrade and locked alpha: he’s fine with it. Handshake is a revenue-focused company, so locked alpha isn’t a survival issue. He acknowledges it’ll be harder on research-stage subnets that need to raise external capital, but argues most subnet founders are thinking long-term, not short-term extraction.
On the broader vibe: he just got back from Bittensor events in Spain and San Francisco. He observed that the overwhelming reality of the ecosystem is people working hard to build the best products. “It’d be a lot easier in some ways to build a company outside of Bittensor.” The only reason to do it on Bittensor is if you actually want the moonshot.

Full interview below:

🙏 Donations Accepted, Thank You For Your Support 🙏

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support via:

💳 Stripe:
1) or visit http://thedinarian.locals.com/donate

💳 PayPal:
2) Simply scan the QR code below 📲 or Click Here:

🔗 Crypto Donations Graciously Accepted👇

XRP: r9pid4yrQgs6XSFWhMZ8NkxW3gkydWNyQX
XLM: GDMJF2OCHN3NNNX4T4F6POPBTXK23GTNSNQWUMIVKESTHMQM7XDYAIZT
XDC: xdcc2C02203C4f91375889d7AfADB09E207Edf809A6

Read full Article

Dinarian888@dinarian888

May 10, 2026

🚨The State Of Bittensor (TAO)🚨

Greg Schvey | COO at Yuma Group

Last week at the @YumaGroup Summit I had the opportunity to present on The State of Bittensor. That presentation is in the thread below. If you choose to read it, I'd ask that you keep the following three things in mind:

This is just one guy's view of what was the most relevant for a 25-minute talk; a difficult filter for such a dynamic industry.
The slides were designed to supplement a talk; I've done my best to replicate what I recall of the talk in the accompanying X posts.
The topic of the Summit was "The Tipping Point" - a candid assessment of what could lead to Bittensor's breakout success and what evidence we see of that today - which also thematically anchored this presentation.

Let's dive in:

We are in the most important race in human history – the race for intelligence itself. AI has advanced beyond the point of no return. As an example of what I mean: Ramp is a widely used financial services platform for companies. They looked at spending and revenue across their clients since the launch of ChatGPT: Companies who did not spend on AI have had flat revenue for the last three years. The top quartile of AI spenders have grown revenue by more than 100%.

We are already at the point where investing in AI is a matter of survival. But what exactly are we getting for the hundreds of billions being spent? Right now, its overwhelmingly going to corporations who have repeatedly shown they don’t have our best interest in mind.

Claude Opus 4.6 – the leading deep thinking model, had a measured hallucination rate of 16% in February. Then, without telling anyone, Anthropic throttled its reasoning – presumably to reduce GPU utilization – and didn’t tell anyone. Hallucinations climbed to 33% - a 98% increase.

They only admitted it after third party benchmarking proved it. And they were still charging everyone at the same price the whole time. Even since my talk last week, they've supposedly been found to be throttling people simply because HERMES.md was in their commits. You may say, "well there are solid open source options..."

Yes, open source models have gotten very good, but they’re not immune to capture either. Try asking DeepSeek what happened in Tiananmen Square and then let me know if that’s the intelligence you want to trust.

This needs to be addressed right now or it will be too late. To give you a sense of what I mean, this is a chart of the total annual commits on GitHub. That’s 500% growth since the launch of ChatGPT in 2022. From 200M per year to a one billion in 2025. 2026 is on track for **14 billion** The genie is out of the bottle – there is no going back; we are already at the exponential inflection point.

This reminds me of many years ago: Bitcoin shined a light on how much our rights were impacted when we became dependent on private companies to run our day-to-day lives.

Your right to privacy? That doesn’t extend to your bank account. Your "money" is just a ledger at a private company, available for interrogation and suspension at any time. Bitcoin gave us back the sovereignty of our wealth.

Similarly, we’ve depended on things like privacy of our medical records and attorney client privilege for our entire lives. What do you think is going to happen when a private company’s servers are giving you legal and medical advice? Who are you going to trust for that intelligence? The company that lobotomized its top model? The model constrained by the foreign governments? As I said at the beginning, we’re in the most important race in human history and Bittensor well may be our best shot at winning.

One of the things about having a different model to produce intelligence is it requires an economic system suited to it. Subnets are the intelligence and economic engines that drive Bittensor’s value. That’s why the Summit was themed around The Tipping Point: understanding how subnets can reach breakout success and what we can do to help.

To summarize Bittensor's intelligence economics: miners create intelligence for which they earn subnet tokens. In many cases they sell those tokens to fund operations, putting downward pressure on token prices and decreasing the incentive to mine (similar to bitcoin). In parallel, if that intelligence is being used to generate real world value, one of the parties who benefits from that value (e.g. the Operator monetizing it, institutions using intelligence commodities to advance their research, etc.) can buy the subnet tokens to keep token prices elevated and sustain the miner incentive.

Investors get to participate in this process, often supporting token prices before the commercial value of intelligence is realized, and/or subsequently holding an asset that parties gaining fundamental value from the intelligence (eg Operator or others) will need to purchase at some point in the future if they want to maintain sufficient incentives for the intelligence machine to continue running.

For Bittensor to succeed, this value loop has to work. So, to understand the State of Bittensor, we have to take a look at how that’s going today and what that means for the network overall.

One of the many unique features of Bittensor is that subnets are native to the protocol. That is not the case on most crypto networks where the true utility lives in smart contracts with no direct tie to network value.

As an example, Polymarket has seen 800% growth in volume this year. Users can bet any arbitrarily large amount of value on Polymarket for a few cents of network fees. There is nothing tying that to value of the network’s native token, which is down 80% over the same period as Polymarket’s amazing success.

Conversely, Bittensor subnets are intrinsically linked to $TAO. If you want $1,000 worth of subnet exposure, you first need $1,000 of TAO. We analyzed subnet pool data surrounding the announcement of @tplr_ai's recent training run and normalized across them by indexing them to a starting level of 100.

As shown by the orange line, there was no material change in pool size for non-Templar subnets over the observation period. There was however, major inflow into Templar’s pool. Given Bittensor’s unique network model, we saw a direct correlation to the change in TAO price over the same period. As value flows into subnets, the whole network benefits. A rising boat lifts the tide, so to speak.

That can go both ways. When Sam left, we saw something similar in reverse; as value was exfiltrated from the network, it started in Covenant subnets and dragged TAO down with it. You know what else we saw in the data though? For all of the noise about concerns of Bittensor’s future, the other subnet pools were mostly unchanged.

The event was interesting because it reminded me of the early days of bitcoin: people would say Bitcoin was only used by drug dealers on the internet. I'd stare at them aghast because in the same breath they told me that an open, permissionless network was used to reliably move money anywhere in the world in minutes by the most untrustworthy people on the planet and yet they didn't understand how the technical feat required to achieve that would create tremendous value.

The Covenant situation is similar: people were concerned about the operator's exit, rather than realizing the only reason we care is because a ground-breaking technical innovation was achieved. But even bigger than that: Bittensor has 128 subnets currently, each striving to generate value for themselves and, transitively, the network as well.

And we’re seeing that occur – Templar was not unique in that regard. The same pattern emerged around the Intel publication on @TargonCompute. The non-Targon pools remained largely unchanged. Targon saw heavy inflows. TAO price climbed with it.

Again: rising boats lift the tide. And there are many boats in Bittensor right now.

We’re seeing major technical innovations at an increasing rate.

Just a few examples from the last couple weeks:

@QuasarModels just announced a custom attention architecture targeting 5M token context windows.

@IOTA_SN9 developed a technique that compresses data flowing between distributed GPUs by 128x with little to no loss in training quality, increasing viability of training large AI models across internet-connected machines worldwide.

We're seeing the building blocks start to form whereby competitive large generalized models can eventually be built. In the meantime, we're also witnessing more targeted, niche players start to pull ahead in their respective fields.

During the presentation, I gave the example of @resilabsai achieving 90% accuracy on their home valuation model, making it the most performant open source model and quickly approaching state of the art. Quite literally as I was explaining this during the talk, @markjeffrey pointed out they had just achieved 98% accuracy.

In the time between when I prepared the presentation and actually presented, they went from best open source to at or near state of the art - only further highlighting the unique value of Bittensor's open, competitive intelligence creation cycle.

And the tech that’s being built on Bittensor is getting real attention from serious players. Again, just a few examples of many: Harvard partnered with @Chutes on research about AI inference efficiency. Valeo – an auto company with $20B in annual revenue – is working with @natix on an AI model for self-driving cars. @zeussubnet- the weather forecasting subnet, is the only party in the world allowed to use data WeatherXM’s network of global weather sensors for commercial purposes. And there are in fact many subnets already commercializing their intelligence.

Most of us are already aware of Chutes seven-figure ARR, but a few other examples:

@LeadpoetAI– which uses their Bittensor subnet to source sales leads, announced earlier this year that they crossed $1M ARR

@Bitcast_network– the content creation platform built on their subnet competition – is already operating profitably

@lium_io– a hardware subnet – has bought more than 4,000 TAO worth of their token

Remember the economic model I outlined earlier; we’re seeing real evidence that it’s starting to work across many subnets. Intelligence built on Bittensor, capturing value in the real economy, and bringing it back into the network.

Action shot of this slide courtesy of @Tom_dot_b

That’s why when we look at Bittensor we like to look at Total Network Value (TNV);

$TAO market cap is only part of the story in Bittensor. TNV = market cap of TAO + market cap of subnets – tao in the pools [as not to double count] The actual value of this network is already higher than most people realize. And notably, subnets make up an increasing proportion of TNV – recently crossing 35% - as value continues to flow into the pools.

Interestingly, we recently noticed a change in TNV: In particular, despite all the volatility in TAO, the dramatic subnet issuance curves, etc. - the combined subnet market cap had been remarkably consistent around $750 million for most of the last year, until recently.

It’s nearly doubled over the last few months – a clear breakout in the trend. If you were looking for Tipping Point, it might look something like this...

I hear a lot that that value is relatively concentrated in the largest subnets. And the market cap distribution does indeed reflect that, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

This is the market cap distribution of the S&P 500. Many healthy economic systems tend towards Pareto distributions. And so what if some subnets are worth more? As we showed earlier, this is an ecosystem that will win or lose *together* And we’re seeing that play out every day.

We track announcements of subnets utilizing each others infrastructure and intelligence. Just as an example, we identified at least eight subnets who announced that they use Chutes for inference. But we have dozens of similar examples of cross-subnet collaboration across many subnets like

@hippius_subnet, @TargonCompute and others.

What’s notable about this:

1. Collaboration seems to be happening at an increasing pace as subnets continue to mature and build out contiguous pipelines of AI infrastructure

2. Keeping money circulating within an economy creates a money multiplier. Capital circulating within a single economy without leaving creates economic value for each party it passes through, without having to bring in new capital. That’s uniquely possible here because of the diversity of infrastructure built on Bittensor.

This network is not 128 discrete growth drivers; it’s increasingly functioning as an interconnected graph, which has substantially more stickiness and value And the pace is about to increase dramatically:

We’re starting to see increasing agents operating on Bittensor: subnets mined by agents, subnets operated by agents...

Consider the Bittensor value flywheel:

-An intelligence goal is established

-Miners compete to achieve the goal

-That produces intelligence

-Intelligence generates value

That’s happening today, as we’ve seen earlier in this discussion.

As agents get more capable, that flywheel spins faster and faster. Permissionless entry means any agent can compete. Protocol-native economic incentives mean good work gets rewarded. Bittensor is uniquely advantaged for agentic speed over guarded, centralized alternatives with corporate procurement cycles.

That also means exploits will be found faster. But, it also means solutions that harden the network against them will be found faster as well.

Accordingly the impact of the network primitives – incentives, accessibility, governance, security, reliability, and all the infrastructure we’re building around the network - have an exponentially larger impact. It is critical that we get these right. The time to nail this, is right now. If we don’t someone else will.

The good news is, for now, Bittensor seems to be in the lead The 30-day moving average of Daily active wallets just crossed a record, approaching 10,000 Up 100% just in the last year.

We’re also seeing subnet ownership increasingly diversify and distribute. The median number of holders of subnet tokens at 2,000 is a 10x increase since the dtao launch a year ago. And at Yuma, we spend a lot of effort and resources to help broaden that access.

Yuma currently partners with 16 custodian and wallet providers to bring Bittensor access to the masses As an institutional-grade validator, the relationships and service we offer give them the confidence to make TAO staking available to millions of end users.

During the Summit, we announced that BitGo’s clients will now have access to subnet token staking through our partnership, making subnet investing available to customers of one of the world’s largest custodians.

We also help people gain access to subnets via investment vehicles. The Yuma Composite Fund gives investors access to a market-cap weighted portfolio of subnets through traditional investment structures. The Yuma Large Cap Fund gives investors concentrated exposure to Bittensor's largest subnets.

Our institutional asset management team handles everything from initial subnet token purchases, to portfolio rebalancing, custody, and reporting. The appeal for institutions is obvious, but even for the Bittensor native, it’s an amazingly simple way to get access to a broadly diversified portfolio, rebalanced regularly.

Between the breakout performance of subnets, the attractive staking rewards, and benefits of diversification, the Yuma funds have outperformed TAO materially year to date [as of when the presentation was created] Nearly 3x outperformance relative to TAO.

And last but definitely not least, our subnet accelerator has helped a wide range of companies access Bittensor. We help them acquire subnet slots, design incentives, provide marketing assistance, review pitch decks, make introductions to other investors, etc. At Yuma we deeply believe in the power of subnets and have helped many of the network's leading intelligence providers start and succeed.

Disclaimer: For informational purposes only. Nothing herein should be construed as financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. This material does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any securities or tokens. Investing in digital assets involves significant risk, including the potential loss of principal. Subnet tokens do not represent equity or ownership interests in any entity. Performance comparisons and index references are illustrative only and not indicative of future results. Charts and indices are based on methodologies and assumptions that may change and may not reflect actual market conditions or liquidity.

Source

🙏 Donations Accepted, Thank You For Your Support 🙏

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support via:

💳 Stripe:

1) or visit http://thedinarian.locals.com/donate

💳 PayPal:

2) Simply scan the QR code below 📲 or Click Here:

🔗 Crypto Donations Graciously Accepted👇

XRP: r9pid4yrQgs6XSFWhMZ8NkxW3gkydWNyQX
XLM: GDMJF2OCHN3NNNX4T4F6POPBTXK23GTNSNQWUMIVKESTHMQM7XDYAIZT
XDC: xdcc2C02203C4f91375889d7AfADB09E207Edf809A6

Read full Article

Available on mobile and TV devices