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
April 25, 2025
Experts Discuss What Trump’s USD1 Stablecoin Needs to Survive the EU’s MiCA Regulation ⚖️
Since its launch in late March, World Liberty Financial’s stablecoin USD1 has achieved an impressive market capitalization, reflecting strong investor interest. If the creators want to maximize USD1’s reach by accessing markets abroad, particularly in Europe, they must confront MiCA’s extensive compliance list.
In a BeInCrypto interview, experts from Foresight Ventures, Kaiko, and Brickken stressed the importance of stablecoin issuers having substantial European bank reserves, operational volume caps protecting the euro, and transparent USD1 information to ensure transparency and avoid conflicts of interest.
🔹️USD1’s Search for Dollar Dominance
World Liberty Financial (WLF), a decentralized finance (DeFi) project heavily associated with the Trump family, officially launched USD1 a month ago. Through this stablecoin, WLF aims to promote dollar dominance worldwide.
So far, this initiative has been working well for WLF. According to CoinGecko, USD1 has now surpassed a market capitalization of $128 million and reached a 24-hour trading volume of nearly $41.6 million. The project has already released 100% of its total supply of 127,971,165 tokens.
For WLF to seriously establish dollar dominance across the globe, it will have to move fast and efficiently. This urgency stems from the need to surpass its main competitors, USDT and USDC. These rivals currently hold a massive market share advantage.
Additionally, there’s a need to maintain a competitive advantage against established currencies like the euro.
USD1 needs to access foreign markets and stand out from established competitors to achieve this. Should Europe become a primary target, USD1 must prepare to tackle numerous challenges head-on.
🔹️The EU’s Stringent Compliance Demands
The European Union (EU) became the first jurisdiction in the world to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework for digital assets across its 27 member states. This regulation, known as Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA), has been in effect for nearly four months. Through this legislation, the EU has confirmed how seriously it takes compliance with a defined regulatory regime.
“MiCA’s main requirements for stablecoins are: full reserve backing with liquid assets, strict reporting and transparency rules, a cap of 1 million daily transactions for non-EU currency stablecoins, a significant part of reserves (30% to 60%) must be held in EU-regulated banks,” Dessislava Ianeva-Aubert, Senior Research Analyst at Kaiko, told BeInCrypto.
The regulation is detailed and clear, leaving no room for interpretation. If USD1 wants to operate in this crypto market of 31 million users, it must ensure it meets every demand.
🔹️US Senators Flag Risks of Presidential Involvement in USD1
WLF’s announcement of a USD1 stablecoin immediately raised regulatory questions surrounding President Trump’s role in the project. Three days after the announcement, a group of lawmakers led by Senator Elizabeth Warren sent a letter to the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
In the letter, the group asked both agencies to clarify how they plan to uphold regulatory integrity following the issuance of USD1.
The Senators cautioned that letting a president personally benefit from a digital currency overseen by federal agencies he has sway over is a big risk to the financial system. They argued that an unprecedented situation like this one could hurt people’s trust in how regulations are made.
“The launch of a stablecoin directly tied to a sitting President who stands to benefit financially from the stablecoin’s success presents unprecedented risks to our financial system,” they argued.
The letter further detailed situations where Trump could directly or indirectly affect decisions regarding USD1.
As things stand, USD1 isn’t well-prepared to follow MiCA’s strict reporting and transparency rules.
🔹️How Do Concerns Over USD1 Impact MiCA Acquisition?
According to Ianeva-Aubert, if USD1 doesn’t clear up doubts over potential conflicts of interest, this would affect its ability to apply for an operating license in the European Union.
“MiCA requires strong governance, including independent directors and clear separation between owners and managers. Issuers must have clear rules to handle conflicts of interest. If USD1 has any conflicts, this could make it harder to comply,” she said.
Ianeva-Aubert also highlighted that WLF still hasn’t released enough public information on USD1 to assess the degree of its compliance effectively. In particular, the stablecoin issuer has not disclosed the measures it would take to safeguard against market manipulation.
“While USD1 has announced partnerships with established providers like BitGo for custody, it is not clear if it currently meets all of MiCA’s anti-manipulation requirements, which include having market surveillance systems to detect suspicious trading patterns, regular transaction monitoring and auditing, clear policies for preventing insider trading, and other strict controls,” she added.
As of now, USD1 would likely fail MiCA’s transparency tests. However, industry experts pointed out other parts of the framework that might be even larger obstacles for USD1 to operate across the European Union.
🔹️Impact of the EU’s Reserve Mandate on USD1
When asked about the biggest regulatory hurdles USD1 would face in securing a MiCA license, experts’ responses were unanimous. The stablecoin would need to store a large portion of its reserves in a European bank.
This mandate has proven difficult for established stablecoin issuers seeking operations across the region.
“For example, Circle (issuer of USDC) had to create an EU entity and keep EU-issued USDC reserves with EU-authorized banks. For issuers meeting these rules could require some level of restructuring, strong EU bank relationships and more complex reserve management. This also means lower interest revenue, since EU banks usually pay less interest than US or offshore banks,” Ianeva-Aubert said.
This regulation aims to ensure seamless accessibility for European crypto users and traders. For Forest Bai, Co-founder of Foresight Ventures, USD1 could capitalize on this opportunity during the early stages of its development. By doing so, it could avoid some of the obstacles its competitors had to endure.
“While consolidating the token’s reserves in EU banks may prove difficult, USD1’s relatively small market size could work in its favor for MiCA compliance at this stage. Unlike established tokens, like USDT, that struggle to adapt, newer entrants that emerged from Circle demonstrate compliance feasibility,” Bai told BeInCrypto.
Yet, even as USD1 scales and its demand grows, other mandatory requirements could restrict its scope of success.
🔹️MiCA’s Transaction Volume Caps to Preserve Euro Dominance
As part of the MiCA regulation, the European Union has taken specific measures to safeguard the euro’s dominance. If a digital currency not denominated in euros were to become extensively adopted for daily payments within Europe, it could present a potential risk to the European Union’s financial sovereignty and the stability of the euro.
To contain this possibility, MiCA places volume caps on transactions used as a means of exchange within the EU.
“A key provision of MiCA that is often overlooked, but critically important, relates to transaction volume limitations for EMTs denominated in non-euro currencies. Where the daily average number of transactions used for payment purposes exceeds 1 million, or the average daily transaction volume surpasses €200 million, the issuer must cease new issuance and present a remediation plan to the regulator. These thresholds are designed to prevent systemic reliance on foreign-denominated EMTs and to protect the euro’s role in the Union’s monetary system,” Elisenda Fabrega, General Council at Brickken, told BeInCrypto.
In other words, MiCA establishes predefined limits on the transactional volume of such currencies. The EU initiates regulatory measures when these limits are exceeded due to widespread payment usage.
“Stablecoins such as TRUMP USD1 must implement monitoring tools and usage controls to avoid breaching these limits unintentionally. Issuers may be required to geo-fence, restrict retail adoption, or structure distribution to mitigate risk of triggering supervisory action,” she added.
Specifically, USD1 issuers must suspend any further digital currency issuance and provide a remediation plan to the relevant regulator, outlining steps to ensure their usage does not negatively impact the euro.
If USD1 wants to work in places where it can experience uninhibited growth, the European market might not be the best fit for this stablecoin. Other parts of MiCA also suggest this could be the case.
🔹️MiCA Limitations to Stablecoins as Investment Vehicles
EU regulators have been clear that stablecoins, or e-money tokens (EMTs), as the regulation refers to them, are payment instruments that should not be confused with investment vehicles. The MiCA framework has a few rules in place to prevent this.
“MiCA prohibits EMTs from offering any form of interest or benefit to holders based on the duration of their holdings. This restriction reinforces the classification of EMTs as payment instruments, not investment vehicles, and limits their use in structured products, yield-generating services, or decentralized finance platforms unless those platforms are also regulated under EU law,” Fabrega told BeInCrypto.
These limitations and the volume caps may make Europe an undesirable target for USD1.
“While MiCA creates a clear pathway for the issuance and trading of stablecoins within the EU, it also introduces operational restrictions that are material and enforceable. The transaction volume thresholds for EMTs, in particular, may constrain market expansion for non-euro-denominated tokens such as TRUMP USD1,” Fabrega concluded.
Given the circumstances, experts like Bai think WLF might want to focus on countries with better market conditions for stablecoin issuers.
🔹️Should WLF Consider the EU Market for USD1 Operations?
While the European Union has an undeniable crypto market presence, other jurisdictions have an even larger footprint.
”The EU’s crypto market remains comparatively small, with just 31 million users versus Asia’s 263 million and North America’s 38 million users, according to a report from Euronews. This limited market size may not justify MiCA compliance costs for projects, like WLFI,” Bai told BeInCrypto, adding that “Projects ultimately determine their own growth strategy. Given that, currently, the EU represents a secondary market for USD1, the project’s strategic priorities may naturally shift toward regions with less stringent stablecoin regulations to drive its adoption.”
These circumstances alone may prompt USD1 to reconsider its options.
“Although the EU has limited competition among stablecoin issuers, WLFI can make up for noncompliance, with aggressive expansion in regions, such as Asia and Africa. The USDT precedent has demonstrated that dominant players can maintain position while boycotting MiCA and the EU market. For USD1, MiCA compliance does offer EU access but appears non-essential to long-term viability, given alternative growth markets,” Bai added.
In fact, USD1 could start by gaining a competitive edge right at home.
🔹️USD1’s Political Backing at Home
With a crypto-friendly president in office –whose very crypto project officially announced the launch of USD1– the stablecoin has sufficient backing to make its mark.
“The bigger question here, however, is whether WLFI will want to push for a MiCA license at all, given it has the right set-up to thrive in the US with its strong political leaning,” Bai emphasized.
Looking past the immediate future, Bai underlined that if the US doesn’t keep developing supportive crypto regulations, USD1’s growth in the country could be held back following a government shift.
“For USD1, policy longevity is worth watching, as its post-Trump viability faces uncertainty, given potential US political shifts in the coming years. Even if WLFI strives to comply with MiCA now, the question is what about the years succeeding Trump’s tenure,” he said.
Nonetheless, failure to comply with a comprehensive framework like MiCA would be a blow to USD1.
🔹️USD1’s Path Amid Growing Appeal of Regulated Stablecoins
Based on Kaiko’s research, users are growing in preference for regulated stablecoins.
“MiCA-compliant stablecoins have shown robust growth during recent market turbulence, according to Kaiko data (as opposed to non-compliant options), showing that users increasingly prefer regulated options,” Ianeva-Aubert revealed.
Given this reality, USD1’s failure to comply with the EU’s regulations, should it ever even consider applying for a MiCA license in the first place, could have negative consequences for the project’s long-term viability.
“If USD1 can’t meet MiCA’s rules, it would likely be blocked from the EU market, just like USDT was for most European users. This would limit its growth and potentially impact its credibility amongst institutional users,” Ianeva-Aubert concluded.
Regardless of the markets WLF evaluates in its efforts to increase the reach of USD1, compliance with general stipulations concerning transparency, legal architecture, and real-time transaction oversight could be conducive to its eventual success.
https://beincrypto.com/experts-discuss-trump-usd1-stablecoin-eu/
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Bittensor $TAO as a frontrunner 🎯
Speaking with @jaltucher on The TAO Pod six months ago, he explained why he sees Bittensor $TAO as a frontrunner for that value capture.
Still worth hearing today.👇
00:03:32
00:01:02
🚨 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.
🌐 Bittensor is becoming a network state for intelligence 🌐
Bittensor is evolving beyond a token network into a global economy where miners, validators, researchers, founders, and subnet communities coordinate to produce AI, compute, data, storage, security, and other digital resources.
🔑 Key points
🔹 A fictional future illustrates the model: In the essay’s 2028 scenario, Mateo earns TAO by competing in AI-optimization subnets from Argentina while collaborating with researchers across the world.
🔹 Work is open by default: Contributors submit models, code, research, and improvements directly into an open network rather than keeping their work behind corporate or government walls.
🔹 Subnets function as factories: Each subnet produces a specialized service or commodity, including compute, trained models, inference, storage, cybersecurity, robotics, and scientific data.
🔹 Miners form a global labor market: Independent operators and teams compete to provide the best outputs at the lowest effective ...
Still Think The Government Has Your Best Interests In Mind? 🤔
⚡ John Hutchison: Antigravity, Crystal Energy & The Suppressed Experiments 🌀
In this presentation, Hutchison details his pioneering experiments with zero-point energy, high-frequency electromagnetic fields, self-generating crystalline power cells, and the physical manifestations of the Hutchison Effect.
🔑 Key Highlights & Breakdown
⚡ The Interdimensional Keyway [01:22] — Hutchison explains how combining conventional electrostatics, high-frequency RF fields, and Tesla wave generators creates a unique spatial resonance. This acts as a "keyway" into quantum zero-point energy fields and gravitational wave distortions.
🛸 Translational Levitation & Acoustic Resonance [03:51] — By subjecting ferroelectric barium titanate cylinders to self-resonance across multiple frequencies, heavy items (including a 7-lb cylinder) become buoyant and glide across surfaces without direct mechanical thrust [06:02].
💎 Crystalline Zero-Point Power Cells [11:19] — By heating, compressing, and ...
🔥 Manual burns are becoming a real economic force across Bittensor 🔥
Bittensor subnet owners are increasingly using manual token burns to reduce alpha supply, strengthen token economics, and connect real revenue or treasury activity to subnet markets.
🔑 Key points
🔹 Manual burns remove alpha from circulation: Subnet teams can purchase and permanently destroy their own tokens.
🔹 Revenue can fund the process: Some subnets use commercial income, platform fees, or treasury resources to support buybacks and burns.
🔹 Supply reduction creates scarcity: Fewer circulating tokens can increase the relative value of remaining alpha if demand remains stable or grows.
🔹 Burns provide visible economic signals: A public burn can show that a subnet is actively managing its token economy rather than relying only on emissions.
🔹 Buybacks and burns are different: A buyback acquires tokens, while a burn permanently removes them from circulation.
🔹 TAO can flow into subnet economies: When a subnet uses TAO ...
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
