nardiel

@AlgodTrading DeFi was just a fiction all along Smart contract platforms are nothing more than stablecoin launchpads.

Maybe they will figure out how to plug the rsEth exploit hole. But who in their right mind still trusts DeFi? The next exploit is a matter of when and not if, especially with AI getting better.

@DistStateAndMe @Og_nonymous @steeve You're not all that. Stop acting cocky. You just put a spoon on the table that const already prepared

@Og_nonymous @steeve Of not blocking you yet . Seriously if you guys don’t leave me alone I will send your shit coin to zero .

this is so fun, Zig on GPU is a match made in heaven like what do you mean defer syncThreads() and comptime BLOCK_M: usize !

@richdotca 1btc 2tao 3zec

The prophecy will come true 👇🏾👇🏾 $TAO

@SubnetSummerT @CryptoHayes It’s already starting due to the DeFi collapse

How many years until this becomes reality for Bittensor $TAO @CryptoHayes

@stacy_muur They were screaming about decentralization this and that, but the second things get urgent they completely flip. Feels exactly like the vibe during the Ethereum hack, right? All that idealistic bullshit talk, and then when shit gets real they act like 'when did I ever say that?

The Arbitrum KelpDAO thing is pretty simple to me. North Korea hacked $292 million. $71 million of it was sitting on Arbitrum. The Security Council, 9 out of 12 elected members, froze it before the hacker could bridge it back to mainnet. And now people are upset about decentralization? Yeah, nobody should be able to touch your funds. That's the whole point. But we're talking about the Lazarus Group here, state-sponsored hackers and stolen funds mid-withdrawal. This isn't some DAO freezing a competitor's treasury because they felt like it. The council didn't even decide what happens to the money; it goes to a full DAO vote now. They hit pause, not delete. I'd rather have governance that can act when DPRK drains a quarter billion than governance that watches it happen so we can all feel good about being decentralized.

@horizenglobal scam. where the internal team manipulates the governance

Most privacy tools in crypto work the same way. They take a transparent system and add a confidentiality layer on top, a wrapper that obscures data after the fact. It's a reasonable approach, and it's also why most of them fall short when the use case gets serious.

@LamidaGlobal I know that SN100 returned after being dereg previously

SN78 Vocence makes a comeback in #bittensor after it was previously deregistered in SN102. It is the 1st subnet that has returned back after the dereg. It is still the same "The voice layer for decentralized intelligence". Has it solved "the reason that made them dereg on 102"? That's the main lookout here. 4 months of immunity will provide ample time to showcase what they are capable of; but time will tell the story. Welcome back Vocence, once again to #dTAO ecosystem.

@TAOTemplar @NiomeAI They said they're gonna do the token migration, but I don't know if it's done yet

My Bittensor TAO subnet research process using #sn55 @NiomeAI as the subject, looking at: * What they do * What miners do * Team * Revenue/plans to drive value to token * Red Flags NFA 1/6

@JesusMartinez Now that Jamie Dimon — who used to call it a scam every single time — has started advocating for blockchain, it looks like the groundwork for RWA trading is finally all done

Ethereum made a name for itself through stablecoins & the generational volume $HYPE has been seeing When macro improves, I can easily see $ETH hitting $10,000+ The big banks have already capitulated & are onboarding

@jswihart @therollupco just wanna sell off the two tokens in his own pocket, lmao

@therollupco Nonsense

Andy asked Hoskinson point blank if he's bullish on Zcash. The answer was nuanced: deep respect for the technology, deep concern about the liquidity trajectory. Zcash invented the cryptography that Midnight uses today. But shielded-by-default assets are getting harder to list on exchanges. Every cycle, the regulatory pressure tightens. Hoskinson's take: the dual-token model sidesteps this entirely. Public token with the same characteristics as Bitcoin or ADA for listings. Private token for computation privacy. Everyone seems okay with that compromise.

@Cointelegraph server?

🇨🇳 TODAY: Chinese professor Jiang Xueqin says Bitcoin is a "CIA operation," questioning where the blockchain servers are located.

@zacodil @Danielsakra Aren't you basically approaching with the mindset that it has to fail or collapse? Capital flowing from a large pool size to smaller pools is just natural market logic and when selling shrinks the pool size it naturally creates buying merit Isn't that simply how the market works?

Exactly. And the broken part is: the protocol keeps minting alpha into these zero-emission subnets. Owner/validator/miner rewards don't stop. SN64 still pays out 99 alpha per tempo - that's pure sell pressure with no new TAO coming in to absorb it. The incentive is to exit before the pool drains, not to build a better product.

Bittensor's two largest subnet pools earn zero daily emissions. A subnet 111x smaller earns $47K/day in $TAO. The top pools by staked capital - the projects with the most TAO committed by stakers: > SN64 Chutes (Rayon Labs): $64.6M pool. Largest AI compute subnet by pool capital. Emissions: $0/day > SN4 Targon (Manifold Labs): $37.0M pool. Intel TDX confidential compute. Emissions: $0/day Zero protocol rewards. Now look at who actually gets paid. Smaller subnets - some with 1% of Chutes' pool - collect $40-$60K/day each from protocol emissions. SN97 FlameWire, with a $582K pool, earns ~$47K/day. That's 8% of its own pool size minted fresh every day. Chutes, with 111x more TAO locked, earns zero. These big pools aren't in the Covenant death spiral yet. SN3 Templar drains 710 TAO/day and its pool halves in 55 days. SN64 Chutes drains 135/day with a pool half-life of ~2 years. SN4 Targon drains only 32/day. But runway isn't the same as safety. Three problems compound: 1/ TaoFlow's EMA has a 30-day half-life. Once flow turns negative, it takes weeks of sustained inflows to get emission back. SN64's flow went from −107 to −135 in four hours today. Accelerating, not recovering. 2/ Alpha dilution continues with zero TAO emission. Every block, owner/validator/miner roles still mint new alpha - 99 tokens per tempo on SN64 alone. Those rewards get sold through the same pool, draining TAO. Holding alpha through this is pure dilution. 3/ Rational exit is about marginal profit, not runway. Covenant crossed that line. Chutes and Targon haven't - yet. Under TaoFlow, "too big to fail" is the trap. The bigger your pool, the more alpha the protocol keeps minting out of it, and the more you have to extract before the pool empties. The biggest subnets have the most runway - and the most incentive to cash out early.

@zacodil Where does the SN3 710t calculation come from? 205/d is the daily release amount, and even assuming that all the daily released amount is completely sold, it’s still only 205t

@taoswap_org @okx @wallet I also encountered a warning while using it, so I even sent a report to OKX, but it's still not fixed yet. In the end, I just decided to delete my OKX wallet. I hope the issue gets resolved properly

@okx @wallet Our users are currently seeing a phishing warning from OKX Web3 Security when visiting our site taoswap.org, which is impacting access and trust. We believe this is a false positive. Could you please advise on the process to review and whitelist our domain? We haven't found a clear support channel, any guidance would be appreciated.

@TaoIsTheKey @0xGarci If Near was really that good, Barry would’ve just started his subsidiary on Near. Why would he start it on Bittensor

Fact-check on @0xGarci’s post: The claim is based on an outdated or incomplete view of Grayscale’s holdings. The post (and attached chart) suggests Grayscale “cut $TAO and elevated $NEAR to the top spot” in their Decentralized AI Fund, framing it as a major derisking move away from Bittensor toward NEAR’s “actual execution.” This is incorrect. Grayscale’s commitment to $TAO is not weakening — it is materially strengthening on two separate fronts. 1. Grayscale Decentralized AI Fund (Multi-Asset Basket) •This is the fund shown in the chart. •Latest rebalance (April 2026): TAO allocation increased sharply from ~31.35% to 43.06%. •NEAR was reduced (to ~24.43%). •RENDER saw a small uptick; Filecoin was trimmed. •TAO is now the largest single holding by a wide margin in the fund. Grayscale is increasing conviction in TAO inside their AI basket, not cutting it. The chart in the post appears to pre-date this rebalance. 2. Dedicated Grayscale Bittensor Trust (GTAO) – Single-Asset Product •Grayscale operates a standalone Bittensor Trust (ticker GTAO on OTCQX) that holds only TAO. •On April 2, 2026, Grayscale filed Amendment No. 1 to Form S-1 with the SEC to convert this trust into a spot TAO ETF listed on NYSE Arca. •The filing moves the product closer to full ETF approval and broader institutional access (in-kind creations, staking eligibility under certain conditions, etc.). •This is a dedicated, high-conviction vehicle — not a diluted basket holding. Grayscale is actively progressing a pure-play TAO product toward regulated ETF status while simultaneously raising TAO’s weight in their broader AI fund. That is the opposite of derisking. Bottom Line on Institutional Commitment •Dedicated Trust + ETF filing = direct, concentrated bet on TAO. •43% allocation in AI fund = largest position and increasing. •No assets were removed; the rebalance was a deliberate overweighting of Bittensor. Grayscale is not walking away from TAO — they are doubling down on the decentralized intelligence thesis while the network continues to ship real revenue across 128 subnets. The narrative in the post confuses a multi-asset rebalance (where TAO just got a big boost) with overall sentiment. Institutional capital is becoming more stringent, and right now it is voting for TAO with both a dedicated product and increased allocation. Sources (as of April 12–13, 2026): •Grayscale official fund pages and S-1/A filing (April 2, 2026). •Recent rebalance data reported across AMBCrypto, Blockster, AInvest, and on-chain confirmations. Always DYOR. But the facts show Grayscale’s TAO exposure is expanding, not contracting. The commitment is getting stronger. $TAO 🚀

I honestly see Grayscale's recent move as a profound shift in market narrative rather than a simple portfolio rebalancing. when I watched them cut $TAO and elevate $NEAR to the top spot, I interpreted it as a definitive vote for actual execution over mere visionary promises I've watched, lets say @bittensor & @opentensor aggressively position itself as the bedrock of "AI infrastructure," even coopting Bitcoin's scarcity narrative. but I know the market isn't easily fooled. from my perspective, when governance is chaotic and community trust begins to fracture, no amount of clever storytelling can sustain a project in the long run conversely, I've noticed @NEARProtocol quietly rewriting its own story. I am impressed that they heard their community proposal to eliminated their emissions overhang, with most of the supply already circulating, and are actively driving genuine adoption through intents and tangible revenue streams. to my eye, that creates a drastically different risk profile compared to tokens surviving purely on "future potential." I read this rotation as Grayscale actively derisking, moving their capital away from experimental AI wagers and anchoring it in networks that demonstrate undeniable product market fit. ultimately, I don't think this signals the death of TAO. rather, I see it as proof that institutional capital is becoming increasingly stringent. I've learned that while compelling narratives can create temporary spikes, sustained capital flows demand consistent execution. this leaves me wondering, though: am I witnessing the beginning of broader AI narrative fatigue across the market, or is this simply a trust deficit isolated entirely to TAO?

@fish_datura I really appreciated the recent buyback you did. Could you let me know what Lium’s criteria for buybacks are? For example, do you execute a buyback once profits reach a certain level or something like that?

Be careful of subnets promising buybacks and not delivering. Be careful of subnets not burning their buybacks. Be careful of subnets that are not transparent about their revenue or don't have a clear plan to support the alpha holders. Let's learn from what happened with covenant. DYOR!

@AlgodTrading And you mentioned it's just "one event," but the people who actually commit crimes are a small minority. The restrictions exist precisely because of that minority

@AlgodTrading Some minimal level of restriction should exist so that more stakers feel comfortable joining, which in turn would drive up the alpha token price and bring in even more miners.

Disincentivising the builders and punishing them because of 1 event would be the worst thing you can do Same as why socialism and capitalism cant work, you need to max incentivise whoever pushes innovation

@nepher_robotics @DistStateAndMe @covenant_ai When I say “burn state,” I mean it’s like a company operating with no employees. So I’m wondering: in what way does it plan to produce its product and generate revenue?

@nepher_robotics @DistStateAndMe @covenant_ai Is Subnet 49 currently generating any revenue? I’d also like to know about its future revenue plans. Additionally, it’s currently in a “burn” state—could you explain more about that?

Since @DistStateAndMe's @covenant_ai left Bittensor, we have been forced to look at Bittensor more honestly. What did Templar, Basilica, and Grail actually leave behind for Bittensor? What did they leave behind for investors, for miners, and for the crypto industry as a whole? What remains is open-source codes on GitHub. There is also the Covenant-72B LLM model, which is not currently being used in the industry and does not appear to have any path toward real adoption. So what does it really mean to fork @tplr_ai 's code again now and try to inherit its legacy? Even if the codebases of Templar, Basilica, or Grail were revived, could they truly become the next Meta or xAI? We believe Sam already knew the answer, but overestimated his own value. If Bittensor had existed without TAO, would Templar, Basilica, and Grail have held any real value at all? And even if they were not simply overvalued ideas, would they ever have generated meaningful economic benefit? We need to build Bittensor subnets more realistically. A subnet should not be something that leaves nothing behind the moment its team walks away. It must generate real economic benefit, or at the very least, provide tangible value to global technological progress. For example, the subnets created by @const_reborn are, in reality, overvalued, and people continue investing in them regardless of whether they truly benefit the industry. Even the prices of subnets operated by bots are extremely high. If someone other than Const were operating those same subnets, they might disappear the moment the immunity period ended. Samuel, too, was overvalued from the beginning because of Const’s backing. @bittensor should learn from @covenant_ai’s withdrawal. Right now, the flow of TAO is moving in an abnormal and highly speculative direction, and behind that flow stand whales. Investment flows move in the direction these figures lead, and as that continued, those who bought large amounts of Covenant-related tokens ultimately lost everything. Subnets need to be examined with much more scrutiny. And no subnet should ever be evaluated based solely on the reputation of its owner. Although Basilica was full of errors, its token price was exceptionally high. Everything must evolve. It may still be too early in AI to build a fully decentralized world, but we are learning and advancing step by step. However, the Bittensor ecosystem cannot be protected if centralized structures remain, or if whales holding multiple subnets are effectively able to manipulate the entire flow of $TAO. That could become even worse than the pre-DTAO era, when OTFs determined emissions. Subnets that create real value, subnets with a clear vision and measurable results, transparent and authentic subnets, and objective evaluation of those subnets — that is what will ultimately lead Bittensor to victory