Revolut’s mistake is the news, but the bigger problem is the growing number of companies being encouraged or required to keep copies of our most sensitive identity documents. |
Online bank Revolut has revealed that it gave out sensitive personal and financial information of an undisclosed number of its customers in response to a fake government request. The information that was handed over to an “unauthorized third party” reportedly includes names, dates of birth, occupations, addresses, phone numbers, account numbers, transaction histories (including Bitcoin), and even copies of government-issued IDs and onboarding verification selfies. Revolut claims that derived biometric face data was not. The company said that the data was handed over in response to an email that came from a real government agency’s domain, but was not actually sent or authorized by that agency. The email passed several authentication checks (SPF, DKIM, and DMARC) that are designed to establish the authenticity of a message’s origin and integrity, but do not verify the legitimacy of the legal request itself. Revolut said that it complied with the request “under the reasonable belief that it was an authentic government agency request” – and only later found out that it was not. Revolut said it later realized its mistake, blocked the email address, and reported the incident to the relevant authorities. Revolut said that only a “limited” number of its customers were affected by the data leak, and that the company’s systems were not hacked, nor was any money stolen. The story broke on September 11 when Revolut customers started receiving an email notice about a data leak, and the news was picked up by media outlets the following day.  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.
🙏To support my work, Helping to keep the signal high and the noise low: 👉 Cashapp: $thedinarian 👉 Buy me a coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/thedinarian 👉 PayPal: Scan the QR code below 📲 or Click Here:
👇 Crypto Donations 👇 XRP: r9pid4yrQgs6XSFWhMZ8NkxW3gkydWNyQX |
Dinarian888
?The Dinarian exists because the truth deserves a platform. Covering cryptocurrency, blockchain technology, global agendas, emerging science, and consciousness — because everything is connected and people deserve to know it. Knowledge is power. ?
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
Dinarian888@dinarian888
February 08, 2024
The Blockchain Paradox: Embracing Regulation To Foster Innovation
Written by Bob Ras who is the co-founder and partner at CoreNest Capital and co-founder of Sologenic and Coreum.
As we journey toward the global mass adoption of blockchain, we confront formidable challenges. The community's steadfast pursuit of completely decentralized, anonymous transactions collides with a stark reality: Without accommodating some level of government control, mass adoption remains an elusive dream.
Blockchain's potential to reshape the financial landscape is immense, but it's hindered by a critical debate: balancing innovation with regulatory oversight. Envision a future where blockchain platforms are capable of high transactional throughput, flexible enough to integrate essential regulatory elements, yet preserve the core principles of blockchain like privacy and decentralization. This is not just about adhering to rules; it's about harmonizing the innovative spirit of blockchain with the pragmatic needs of financial governance.
The controversy intensifies as critics argue that increased regulation could suppress innovation, leading to a less dynamic blockchain space. Proponents, however, view regulatory adaptation as an inevitable evolution for blockchain's maturity and wider acceptance. This tension between innovation and regulation lies at the heart of blockchain's future, stirring heated debates within the community.
Beyond innovation, blockchain's potential lies in revolutionizing our financial infrastructure. A forward-thinking blockchain model could include participatory governance features, allowing users to influence its evolution. This approach could make blockchain more responsive to both emerging technological trends and regulatory changes.
At this juncture, the blockchain market faces a critical decision. It's not just about technological sophistication; it's about crafting solutions that are advanced yet compliant with regulatory frameworks. Can blockchain transcend its niche origins to become a universally accepted financial tool? The community's willingness to adapt and innovate will be pivotal in unlocking blockchain's full potential.
The regulatory landscape is evolving rapidly, with countries like the United States intensifying efforts to combat crypto-enabled crimes. The U.S. government, for instance, has been increasingly active in sanctioning exchanges and wallets linked to criminal activities. This aggressive stance marks a significant shift in U.S. cryptocurrency regulation, illustrating a global impact on curbing cybercrimes. Moreover, high-profile law enforcement successes, such as the seizure of ill-gotten digital assets, underscore the growing seriousness of policing these transactions.
However, this increased regulation comes with its own set of controversies and challenges. For instance, the distinction between digital assets as securities or commodities remains a contentious issue, particularly in the U.S. where the regulatory approach differs significantly from other countries. This ambiguity has led to increased legal scrutiny and lawsuits against major digital asset exchanges, adding another layer of complexity to the regulatory environment.
The international landscape varies greatly. The divergent approaches highlight the global uncertainty surrounding regulation. The U.S. has attempted to bridge the gap by applying existing financial regulations to these newer asset classes. However, these measures have had limited success in curbing illicit transactions, as users often resort to foreign exchanges.
Amid these regulatory efforts, new challenges emerge. The use of digital assets for illicit payments, including ransomware and dark market transactions, continues to be a concern. The lack of transparency from digital market intermediaries exacerbates this issue. Furthermore, the potential introduction of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) adds another dimension to this complex regulatory landscape, raising questions about privacy and the impact on traditional banking systems.
As the blockchain community stands at this crossroads, the path forward is not singular but multifaceted. The future of blockchain isn't about choosing between innovation and regulation but about navigating the intricate balance between the two. This landscape demands a diverse approach, where different chains serve unique purposes within the broader financial ecosystem.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
00:00:25
They Are Making It Easier And Easiet For The Average Joe To Trade 😉
X partners with crypto and stock exchanges to allow trading from the timeline.
•GGeiin
•Kraken
•Moomoo
• Coinaas
00:00:40
🚨 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 ...
🚨 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...
👉 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.
🤖 Sanders unveils bill to ban artificial superintelligence and create Department of AI 🤖
Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Greg Casar introduced legislation on September 23, 2026, that would permanently ban artificial superintelligence, pause development of the most advanced AI systems, and establish a federal Department of Artificial Intelligence.
🔑 Key points
🔹 Artificial superintelligence would be prohibited: The bill defines it as a system that exceeds human cognitive ability or could plan and execute humanity’s destruction or disempowerment.
🔹 Advanced AI development would be paused: Development of the most powerful systems would halt until federal safety guidelines are created.
🔹 A Department of Artificial Intelligence would be established: The new agency would oversee advanced AI safety, approvals, regulation, and deployment.
🔹 Federal approval would be required: Advanced AI systems could not be deployed until receiving authorization under the proposed framework.
🔹 Criminal penalties ...
⚙️ Bittensor runtime v468 completes Root Reborn with copy-trading and active basket yields ⚙️
Runtime v468 completes Bittensor’s Root Reborn upgrade, giving root validators greater control over subnet-token rewards earned by their stakers.
🔑 Key points
🔹 Automatic conversion changed: Previously, subnet rewards earned through root were automatically converted into TAO, creating regular selling pressure on subnet tokens.
🔹 Rewards now remain in baskets: Root rewards are held as subnet tokens inside validator-linked baskets.
🔹 Validators can manage baskets: They can move value between subnets, reduce positions, or hold part of the basket in TAO.
🔹 Copy-trading is introduced: Stakers’ rewards can follow the allocation strategy managed by their selected root validator.
🔹 Original TAO stake remains separate: The basket contains earned rewards, while the staker’s original TAO position remains distinct.
🔹 Stakers retain control: Users can claim rewards, switch validators, or leave ...
Revolut Leak Shows the Cost of Constant ID Collection
This Is The Income A Family Needs To Live Comfortably In Every US State
Here’s the short version of what it takes for a family of four to live comfortably in 2026 by state:
In Massachusetts, you’d need nearly $330,000 a year - the highest figure in the entire country. Only three states clear the $300,000 mark: Massachusetts, Hawaii, and California. At the other end of the spectrum, Mississippi is the most affordable at about $188,000. That’s a full $142,000 less than what you’d need in Massachusetts.
So… how much does a family of four need in your state?
This map shows the pre-tax income a household with two working adults and two kids needs to live comfortably in every U.S. state.
The numbers come from SmartAsset (as of February 2026). They’re based on the familiar 50/30/20 budget: 50% for necessities, 30% for discretionary spending, and 20% for savings or other goals. These aren’t bare-minimum survival numbers—they’re what it takes to live pretty well while still putting money aside.
And as Visual Capitalist notes, Massachusetts sits at the very top of that list. Massachusetts tops the ranking, with a family of four needing $329,555 per year to meet the 50/30/20 benchmark.
Hawaii follows at $313,165, while California ranks third at $302,682.
Rank State Income needed for family of four (2026)
- 1 - Massachusetts - $329,555
- 2 - Hawaii - $313,165
- 3 - California - $302,682
- 4 - Connecticut - $298,189
- 5 - New Jersey - $295,110
- 6 - New York - $291,533
- 7 - Colorado - $283,213
- 8 - Washington - $281,798
- 9 - Oregon - $280,966
- 10 - Vermont - $280,384
- 11 - Alaska - $272,064
- 12 - New Hampshire - $267,904
- 13 - Rhode Island - $264,659
- 14 - Minnesota - $263,078
- 15 - Maryland - $257,837
- 16 - Maine - $250,931
- 17 - Montana - $249,434
- 18 - Pennsylvania - $247,936
- 19 - Illinois - $244,109
- 20 - Virginia - $242,944
- 21 - Nevada - $242,278
- 22 - Indiana - $241,696
- 23 - Wisconsin - $238,451
- 24 - Arizona - $236,870
- 25 - Utah - $235,789
- 26 - Delaware - $228,134
- 27 - Ohio - $226,221
- 28 - Idaho - $226,054
- 29 - Florida - $223,392
- 30 - New Mexico - $223,142
- 31 - Nebraska - $223,059
- 32 - Missouri - $217,734
- 33 - Georgia - $214,573
- 34 - Michigan - $214,323
- 35 - South Carolina - $212,909
- 36 - North Carolina - $212,410
- 37 - Wyoming - $212,410
- 38 - Oklahoma - $211,910
- 39 - North Dakota - $210,496
- 40 - Kansas - $207,917
- 41 - Iowa - $204,422
- 42 - Texas - $203,424
- 43 - West Virginia - $202,592
- 44 - South Dakota - $201,760
- 45 - Alabama - $198,931
- 46 - Louisiana - $197,933
- 47 - Tennessee - $197,267
- 48 - Arkansas - $195,437
- 49 - Kentucky - $194,854
- 50 - Mississippi - $187,533
Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York aren't far behind, bringing the number of states with comfortable-income thresholds above $290,000 to six.
Colorado and Vermont Make the Top 10
As expected, many of the highest income thresholds are concentrated in the Northeast and along the West Coast.
However, Colorado has the seventh-highest threshold in the country at $283,213, ranking above Washington and Oregon.
Vermont rounds out the top 10 at $280,384, despite having the second-smallest population of any U.S. state. Meanwhile, nearby states like New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode Island all fall outside the top 10.
Just Six States Come in Below $200,000
Despite the wide range in living costs across the country, only six states have a comfortable-income threshold below $200,000 for a family of four.
Mississippi ranks lowest at $187,533, followed by Kentucky. The states of Arkansas, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Alabama also fall below the $200,000 mark.
The gap between Massachusetts and Mississippi exceeds $142,000 per year, meaning the Massachusetts benchmark is about 76% higher.
🙏To support my work, Helping to keep the signal high and the noise low:
👉 Cashapp: $thedinarian
👉 Buy me a coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/thedinarian
👉 PayPal: Scan the QR code below 📲 or Click Here:
👇 Crypto Donations Always Welcome 👇
XRP: r9pid4yrQgs6XSFWhMZ8NkxW3gkydWNyQX
XLM: GDMJF2OCHN3NNNX4T4F6POPBTXK23GTNSNQWUMIVKESTHMQM7XDYAIZT
XDC: xdcc2C02203C4f91375889d7AfADB09E207Edf809A6
🤖Can Decentralized AI Stop Big Tech from Owning the Future of Robotics?🤖
The race to build the future of robotics is no longer just about robots. It's about who controls the intelligence behind them.
Over the last three years, a small group of companies has emerged as the backbone of the AI revolution. Microsoft provides cloud infrastructure. NVIDIA supplies the chips. Google, OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, and others develop the models. Together, they control much of the compute, data, and software stack powering modern AI.
Now that AI is moving into the physical world, many are asking a bigger question:
Will these same companies end up controlling robotics too?
It's a valid concern.
The latest generation of robots relies on enormous amounts of compute, simulation, training data, and foundation models. Many robotics startups today are built on infrastructure provided by large technology companies. NVIDIA's Omniverse is becoming a key simulation environment for robot training. Microsoft Azure is powering the training of robotics foundation models. Physical AI startups increasingly depend on hyperscale cloud infrastructure to train and deploy intelligent systems. Recent partnerships across the industry show just how central Big Tech has become to robotics development.
But while Big Tech is building the highways, another movement is trying to ensure it doesn't own every destination.
That movement is decentralized AI.
Why Decentralized AI Exists
The idea behind decentralized AI is simple. Instead of a handful of companies owning the models, compute infrastructure, data pipelines, and intelligence networks, these resources are distributed across thousands of participants.
This means anyone can contribute compute, contribute models, validate outputs and can participate.
The most visible example today is the decentralized AI network known as Bittensor (@bittensor). The network has evolved into a large ecosystem of specialized AI markets called subnets, where participants compete to provide useful machine intelligence and are rewarded based on performance. Rather than relying on a single company, intelligence is generated and validated by a distributed network of miners and validators.
Think of it as an attempt to build an open marketplace for AI instead of a world where intelligence is rented from a few centralized providers.
Why This Matters for Robotics
Robotics has a unique problem. Unlike chatbots, robots operate in the physical world. They need to perceive environments, make decisions, move safely and they need to learn continuously.
The challenge is that collecting and training on real-world robotic data is incredibly expensive. That's one reason large companies have such an advantage. They can afford the compute, simulation environments, and data infrastructure needed to train robotics models at scale.
This is where decentralized systems become interesting.
Instead of one company collecting all the data and training all the models, decentralized networks could allow thousands of contributors to participate in building robotic intelligence.
Imagine a future where:
- Warehouse robots contribute operational data.
- Delivery robots contribute navigation data.
- Factory robots contribute manipulation data.
- Developers contribute models.
- Validators evaluate performance.
The resulting intelligence becomes a shared network rather than a proprietary asset.
That vision is beginning to emerge.
Bittensor's Move Toward Physical AI
While many people associate Bittensor (@bittensor) with language models and AI services, parts of the ecosystem are increasingly exploring embodied intelligence and robotics.
One example is Kinitro, a subnet focused on incentivizing the training and evaluation of embodied AI systems. The goal is to create competitive environments where developers build robotic intelligence and are rewarded based on performance.
The broader Bittensor ecosystem has also expanded into compute marketplaces, distributed inference systems, bandwidth infrastructure, and AI coordination layers that could eventually support robotics workloads. Several subnets now focus on decentralized compute, confidential inference, data transfer, and model training, critical components for future robotic systems.
In other words, the pieces are starting to appear.
Not a decentralized robot network yet.
But the infrastructure that could support one.
Beyond Bittensor: The Rise of Physical AI Networks
Bittensor isn't alone.
Across the industry, researchers and builders are experimenting with decentralized approaches to physical AI.
New research published in 2026 introduced the concept of DAO-enabled decentralized physical AI, or DePAI. The idea combines robotics, decentralized infrastructure, AI models, governance systems, and human oversight into a single framework. Instead of centralized control, robots and physical infrastructure could be coordinated through transparent rules and distributed ownership models.
At the same time, developers are exploring decentralized operating systems for robots that allow machines to communicate directly with each other and with distributed compute resources. These architectures are designed to make robotic systems more resilient and less dependent on a single cloud provider.
The goal is not simply decentralization for its own sake.
The goal is resilience.
If one server fails, the system continues.
If one company disappears, the network survives.
If one participant leaves, innovation continues.
But Here's the Reality
Decentralized AI faces the same challenge every decentralized technology faces.
Big Tech has resources. A lot of resources.
Training advanced robotics models requires enormous compute budgets, sophisticated simulation environments, access to specialized hardware, and vast amounts of real-world data.
That's why many robotics startups still partner with major cloud providers and AI companies. It's often the fastest path to deployment.
And there are legitimate concerns about whether decentralized networks can maintain quality, reliability, and security at the scale required for industrial robotics. Even researchers studying decentralized AI systems have highlighted risks around concentration, incentives, governance, and network security.
The challenge isn't just decentralizing intelligence.
It's decentralizing intelligence while maintaining performance.
That's much harder.
The Most Likely Outcome
The future probably won't be fully centralized. And it probably won't be fully decentralized either. Instead, we're likely heading toward a hybrid model.
Large technology companies will continue providing chips, cloud infrastructure, simulation platforms, and foundational research.
At the same time, decentralized AI networks will emerge as alternative coordination layers where intelligence, data, and economic value can be shared more openly.
The companies building robots may use NVIDIA hardware.
Train on Azure.
Run foundation models from OpenAI.
But they may also participate in decentralized data networks, decentralized compute markets, and decentralized intelligence protocols.
The future of robotics could end up looking less like a monopoly and more like an ecosystem.
The Bigger Question
The real question isn't whether decentralized AI can eliminate Big Tech.
It can't.
At least not anytime soon.
The real question is whether decentralized AI can prevent a future where a handful of companies control every robot, every model, every dataset, and every decision made by the machines operating around us.
As robots become workers, assistants, delivery drivers, factory operators, and even economic agents, that question becomes increasingly important.
Because the battle for the future of robotics is no longer about hardware.
It's about who owns the intelligence.
And that battle is just getting started.
🙏To support my work, Helping to keep the signal high and the noise low:
👉 Cashapp: $thedinarian
👉 Buy me a coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/thedinarian
👉 PayPal: Scan the QR code below 📲 or Click Here:
👇 Crypto Donations 👇
XRP: r9pid4yrQgs6XSFWhMZ8NkxW3gkydWNyQX
XLM: GDMJF2OCHN3NNNX4T4F6POPBTXK23GTNSNQWUMIVKESTHMQM7XDYAIZT
XDC: xdcc2C02203C4f91375889d7AfADB09E207Edf809A6
