perseverance

96 posts

perseverance banner
perseverance

perseverance

@im_perseverance

Intelligence Sovereignty — Long TAO

Katılım Şubat 2026
60 Takip Edilen31 Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
perseverance
perseverance@im_perseverance·
The Intelligence Sovereignty Alpha Thesis is live. A framework for investing in AI as an infrastructure shift. Every position has a role. Every claim is falsifiable. Capital is allocated accordingly. At its core is the only AI asset you can audit in real time: Bittensor. Read it. Verify it. Challenge it.
perseverance@im_perseverance

x.com/i/article/2038…

English
0
0
0
317
perseverance
perseverance@im_perseverance·
I'm not married to TAO, but from everything I've seen, there isn't a single project attempting to coordinate distributed compute at this scale. I don't disagree on the quality problem, a lot of subnets are extractive. But that's exactly what deregistration exists for. The mechanism self-corrects over time. There are real problems, though I see them being addressed. Bittensor isn't there yet, and may never get there, but nothing else is even attempting what it's attempting.
English
0
0
1
63
LiτBro
LiτBro@bittybitbit86·
@im_perseverance @AlgodTrading I think there will be an abundance of distributed compute outside of Tao, I don’t see anything in Tao ecosystem that shows me it will be leading that narrative. Look at subnets, they’re all whaled to shit and mostly all trash extraction.
English
1
0
1
70
perseverance
perseverance@im_perseverance·
I won't argue that Chutes is behind, but for a large portion of tasks it can be more than sufficient. OpenAI will suffer the exact same unit economics problem as Anthropic and xAI. This isn't a competition catching up story, it's a structural ceiling that applies to every centralised inference provider. Hopefully we'll see developments out of Chutes that make it even more competitive. The team is actively working towards that.
English
1
0
0
73
perseverance
perseverance@im_perseverance·
@RetailWarrior5 @bittybitbit86 @AlgodTrading Check my timeline, I don't post vanity. I've published a full forensic analysis of Chutes, on-chain data, corroborated independently by their own transparency report. That's not narrative. Also Chutes is a open book on their own off the chain revenue.
English
0
0
0
27
Algod
Algod@AlgodTrading·
This is the best investment thesis you can have for $tao
Hedgie@HedgieMarkets

🦔Microsoft canceled its internal Claude Code licenses this week after token-based billing made the cost untenable, even for a company with effectively infinite cloud resources. Uber's CTO sent an internal memo warning the company burned through its entire 2026 AI budget in just four months. American AI software prices have jumped 20% to 37%, and GitHub (owned by Microsoft) is dropping flat-rate plans for usage-based billing across its products. My Take The AI subsidy era is ending in real time. The same company that put $13 billion into OpenAI and built the Azure infrastructure powering most of Anthropic's compute just looked at the bill from a competitor's coding tool and decided it was not worth paying. That is not a productivity failure on Anthropic's end. Token-based pricing is forcing every enterprise customer to confront the actual cost of running these models at scale, and the number turns out to be far higher than the flat-rate experiments suggested. This ties directly to my Gemini Flash post yesterday. Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google all raised effective prices in the last six months. Enterprises that built workflows assuming AI costs would keep falling are now watching annual budgets evaporate in months. Two outcomes look likely from here. Either enterprises scale back AI usage to fit budgets, which slows the revenue ramp the labs need to justify their valuations ahead of IPOs, or the labs cut prices and absorb the losses, which makes the unit economics worse at exactly the wrong moment. Both paths land in the same place, the numbers stop working, and somebody has to take the writedown. Hedgie🤗

English
22
58
406
57.6K
perseverance
perseverance@im_perseverance·
TAO itself no, but indirectly through subnets. Bittensor is a marketplace of AI companies that, being subsidised by the chain, can offer much more competitive pricing than centralised labs burning through enterprise budgets at unsustainable rates. The Microsoft cancellation isn't an Anthropic problem. It's a unit economics problem. Decentralised inference doesn't have that ceiling when the chain supports some of the costs. A LLM such as Chutes can provide equivalent enterprise-grade services for a fraction of the cost.
English
2
0
1
136
perseverance
perseverance@im_perseverance·
Embarrassing, really. Only if you didn't do your due diligence. Whales, just like everyone else, are entitled to trade. It just so happens that their capital tilts thin liquidity pools significantly. Those small subnets that "saw strength" only did so in numbers because 5GuRl was staked in there in the first place. We're investing in an ecosystem where the chain gives you near clairvoyant visibility if you use it. Check nominator concentration before you enter. If a single holder controls a disproportionate share, either avoid it or price in the exit risk they bring. The information is public. The tools exist. At some point the responsibility is yours.
English
1
0
0
141
perseverance
perseverance@im_perseverance·
This is exactly why accounting for whales' presence in thin pools is non negotiable. Rotation is rational, whales optimise for risk/reward and conviction in the projects just like anyone else. If your position depends on a whale staying parked, or worse, if you didn't see them coming, that's not bad luck, that's a reading failure. Chain literacy isn't optional if you want to be consistently profitable.
English
1
0
1
130
一只羊 ττ
一只羊 ττ@Yizhiyangfund·
为什么大部分Bittensor散户们都在对5Gur进行抨击？ 作为一只鲸鱼的体量在市场卖出1-2笔确实会短期内对子网造成不可逆的伤害 但这也是再正常不过的，他在大批量买进的时候，你们也疯狂叫好 因为给你们拉盘了 而他需要买入其它子网，卖掉一些长期没有消息的Alpha这也是情理之中 交易本就是自由 敬自由🫡
一只羊 ττ tweet media
中文
2
2
25
1.4K
perseverance
perseverance@im_perseverance·
Agreed. Conviction locked alpha can't circulate. For the duration of the lock, it should be treated the same as burned supply when calculating inflation. If the chain recognizes locked alpha as effectively out of circulation, buyback+burn becomes redundant. Owners are already removing supply and signaling skin in the game through conviction alone. Right now the chain doesn't treat it that way, which is the gap. Fix that, and buybacks become an artifact of a pre-conviction era. Though for now, buyback+burns remain a crucial mechanic.
English
0
0
0
41
zorr0
zorr0@aizorr0·
@TAOTemplar @lium_io buy backs and burn doesn’t make any economic sense in the age of conviction
English
2
0
1
284
τao τemplar
τao τemplar@TAOTemplar·
Only 2 productive bittensor subnets are consistently manually burning their alpha daily (not miner burns, these are buyback+burns). @lium_io leads with ~87 TAO worth of their alpha burnt per day (in the last 30 days). This insane amount is partially due to buyback+burns, but also because @fish_datura is insane and is burning a lot of his subnet owner emissions. @chutes_ai boughtback+burnt an average of ~28 TAO worth of their alpha per day (in the last 30 days). Honorable mentions @sportstensor (almanac) and @VantaSN8 both were burning for several days in a row earlier in the month, but have now stopped. This will be clearly visible publicly on taoflute.com soon.
English
8
12
108
6.3K
perseverance retweetledi
Doug Sillars 🌻
Doug Sillars 🌻@dougsillars·
This week's chain update has another big change - how emission is calculated. We all know tao_flow: exponential moving avg of (staked - unstaked) This week, we will begin using net_tao_flow to calculate emissions: net_tao_flow = EMA(tao_flow) - EMA(protocol_flow) 🧵
English
3
7
37
6.2K
perseverance
perseverance@im_perseverance·
The entry prices are prohibitive, no question. But they exist for a reason. During the immunity period, subnet owners generate revenue simply by existing. Without a significant upfront cost, the chain becomes a playground for people looking to make a quick buck without risking anything. The current prices act as a deterrent against that. That said, capital shouldn't be the only path in. The ecosystem would benefit from reserving a handful of subnet slots (5-10) for something like a competition, where the best ideas earn a position based on merit, not money. Sure, winners could still slack off after acquiring a slot. But if the competition demands a rigorous theoretical subnet proposal, the effort required to win naturally filters out bad actors. You'd be selecting for people who've invested serious thought, not just serious capital. High barriers protect the chain. But they shouldn't be the only gate.
English
0
0
0
28
Pri τ
Pri τ@Pritensor·
Bittensor // $TAO Das lustige dabei ist, dieser Aspekt wird als POSITIV in der Community bewertet, obwohl dies ein absolutes Disaster ist. Bittensor soll darauf abzielen das JEDER teilnehmen soll/kann, und bei Bittensor auch Leute bauen sollen, die noch am studieren sind, frisch fertig mit dem Studium, oder auch Angestellte die ihre eigene Vision im Betrieb nicht umsetzen können. Const sagt dies selber ständig…jeder Student ist willkommen. Lustig, denn zeigt mir mal Studenten und Co. die auf Bittensor bauen wollen mit ihrer eigenen Vision, und dann 6-7 stellige Summen für eine Subnet Registrierung brauchen. Das ist so weit weg von der Realität, wie es überhaupt geht. Immer mehr Subnet Slots sind unter Kontrolle von Const/Dev‘s oder Grayscale (Yuma). Studenten und Co. sind verpflichtet sich hohe Schulden zu machen, oder Knebelverträge abzuschließen um ein Subnet starten zu können. Das Ökosystem ist NICHTS für Studenten oder Leute mit wenig Kapital. Dann kommen andere um die Ecke und sagen: „Aber Const oder YUMA bieten immer Hilfe an.“ Ja, natürlich bieten die Hilfe an, allerdings machen die es nicht kostenlos, so das es mit immensen Gegenleistungen einher geht. Das Ökosystem hat sich zum Kaninchenbau für Reiche entwickelt. τ = bittensor $TAO #Crypto
Sami Kassab@Old_Samster

the price for registering a new subnet early this year was 230 TAO. Today, one was just registered at 1500 TAO. really high demand for one of the 128 Bittensor slots

Deutsch
9
2
10
3.3K
perseverance
perseverance@im_perseverance·
There's no question that Const is an amazing builder with genuinely good intentions, but he's making a vital mistake. Decentralization requires at least impartiality, at best absence from the founding figure. A founder cannot take public stances as if they carry the same weight as anyone else's. The weight of being a founder doesn't disappear because you want it to. Every public position he takes carries structural influence that no other voice in the ecosystem has. In a subnet world, contributing is fine. Even running his own subnet would be perfectly acceptable, if it were the extent of his role. Developing the system for impartiality and protocol resilience is welcome. Taking public positions is where it becomes disingenuous if the goal is real decentralization. A subnet is a product. A public stance is a directive. One lets the ecosystem evaluate on merit, the other tilts the field. The shackles of being a founder aren't optional. It's the cost of having built the thing.
English
1
0
1
182
Pri τ
Pri τ@Pritensor·
Bittensor // $TAO Is unfortunately a point. Except for Satoshi, all other founders have a far too big ego problem to grant full decentralization. Founders are so better off being constantly praised, what the great do and have built, so that this person never wants to give up the full power. @const_reborn is also like that. How many times he said, Opentensor and he would go, and that even Q4 2025 was set as a dead line? But nothing happened. The excuse "there is a lot to do" has become boring in the meantime. If it goes after that, you will ALWAYS be able to say, it is not yet perfect to go completely, there will never be a perfect moment, it did not exist with Bitcoin either, but nevertheless Satoshi left because the rest of all the builders was done, and Satoshi wanted to exclude himself as a central power person. Satoshi is a real hero...no ego problem, he wanted full decentralization, was anonymous, withdrew completely. Many do not want to see the reality that Bittensor is only sham decentralized. What good is individual decentralized aspects if in the end a single person has power over everything? It's worth nothing. If a project pretends to be decentralization, but it is not, then this is a serious and bad mistake, that must change. I have been calling for this for a long time, a very long time. But the founder's ego is too big. Anyone who really calls Bittensor as „funny“ decentralized is an absolute idiot and unable to read the simplest Docs/Governance/Codes/Blockchains. You'd better go play in the sandbox, that's too much for you. Bitcoin: There is no second best. τ = bittensor $TAO #Crypto
Distributed State@DistStateAndMe

You can choose to see that, or read my poster . Regardless , the outcome is i left. Can we have decenteralisation ? Can we have governance ? We get headless agents ! true commodities , shorting, conviction locking . If you cant see this maniac will never give away power. You deserve what you get

English
4
1
15
3.4K
perseverance
perseverance@im_perseverance·
Stepped away from X for a few days. Back to the grind. Sometimes you need to zoom out. Either way, the sentinel stayed active. The process never stopped.
English
0
0
0
24
perseverance
perseverance@im_perseverance·
Also, if you could interview const again that would be great. I'm interested to know how the new conviction locked stake works when it comes to the team's ability to fight off against dilution. Do the team's locked staked alpha account towards their burn rate or do they have to rely more than ever on buyback and burns? This is a potential issue that I see in which teams might have to rely on miner burns if they are actually short on capital and can't afford to buyback alpha to burn.
English
0
0
0
26
Tao Outsider
Tao Outsider@TaoOutsider·
More content about $TAO and $dTAO coming soon. I’ve been talking with these awesome people: TaoSwap - Rapido Leadpoet - Gavin RESI - Seby Score - Max Gordon Frayne Subnet Summer - Alchie The Nerds - Marius Who do I need to talk to?
English
3
4
15
994
perseverance
perseverance@im_perseverance·
Covenant’s departure exposed a gap. That gap is now closed at the block level. I built a sentinel that monitors subnets on a per-block basis, detecting liquidity shifts, price shocks, supply changes, and raw capital flow in real time. It has been migrated to Oracle Cloud, where it runs as a persistent daemon. Automated adaptive thresholds calibrate detection to each subnet’s behavior. Designed to catch what snapshots miss. Alongside upcoming stake commitment mechanisms, the system is becoming increasingly robust. Snapshots show state. The sentinel watches the transition.
English
0
0
0
44
perseverance
perseverance@im_perseverance·
Nothing wrong with people leaving the ecosystem, this is not a dictatorship where you have to stay. My issue is how Sam framed his exit, and how he left his community hanging. I run my own chain monitoring tooling, and nothing happened days prior. Also, even though const has foregone OTF's leadership, it's obvious that he still has a massive influence. I personally don't have an issue with him selling a small bag of Covenant's alpha when in discordance with some stuff, but it could be viewed as manipulative by some. In any case, how Bittensor handles this stuff going forward is the real question. If this doesn't push some growth on governance, we'll have a serious issue. Bittensor is still the real deal if the right steps are taken going forward.
English
1
0
3
168
Pri τ
Pri τ@Pritensor·
Bittensor // $TAO Just yesterday, this subnet was being promoted as the best thing in the ecosystem. Every single person was hyping it. Then came the announcement that they’re leaving the Bittensor ecosystem, and they cashed out their earned capital accordingly. The funny part? Suddenly it’s being labeled a “scam” and a “rug pull”, the same thing that was being called the greatest innovation just hours earlier. What exactly is wrong with selling capital that you earned? Your problem isn’t the project. Your problem is that the price dumped and your own bags are down. That’s it. That’s your only problem. Because you’re capitalist pigs… and capitalist pigs want to shame other capitalist pigs for selling. The difference is… the ones who sold actually built something. They had a company, a team behind the scenes, development, real work, and they were rewarded for it through emissions. Since when do you build something and then aren’t allowed to fully exit when you leave the ecosystem? But here’s where it gets even more interesting… One side gets criticized. But what doesn’t get criticized is this… A founder who owns his own subnets has an automatic conflict of interest. Neutrality is void by default. Anyone who claims otherwise is a fool. It also seems perfectly acceptable, and nobody in the community talks about it, when the founder himself invests in subnets and then publicly speaks about and praises those same subnets. Nice way to pump your own bags. The founder himself (@const_reborn ) is as far from neutral as it gets, and logically has the same capitalistic drive as everyone else. The conflict of interest is real. So is the manipulation of subnets to fill his own pockets. Every time I criticize the great, wonderful, supreme leader Const, a wave of backlash hits, because the community apparently loves Const more than their own (🫣). Yeah, that sounds harsh. But I say what I think.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ τ = bittensor $TAO #Crypto
Pri τ@Pritensor

Bittensor // $TAO Exactly what is being criticized here regarding Bittensor has always been a criticism point for me as well, and I’ve communicated it publicly multiple times. Instead of accepting criticism and working on solutions in a constructive way, there’s only hate. It’s very unfortunate that these subnets/teams are leaving Bittensor. Because this subnet has been in the spotlight the entire time and has been hyped up by everyone, since we barely have any subnets that actually deliver real quality. @chamath talked about it on the All-In Podcast in front of Jensen (CEO @nvidia), @Jason has constantly spoken about its performance, as has @const_reborn. Every single person, whether investors, founders, or retailers, saw this as one of the most important flagship subnets on Bittensor. And now exactly these teams are leaving the ecosystem. This is a much bigger statement than many people think. It’s time to take action, and not just keep sugarcoating everything. τ = bittensor $TAO #Crypto

English
10
0
18
2.5K
perseverance
perseverance@im_perseverance·
The latest covenant news made one thing clear: Snapshot tooling is only the foundation. Looking at trajectory data for SN3, SN39 and SN81, there is nothing that supports Sam’s claims at a daily level. Emission cuts were only written into the chain today. Sure, Basilica lost 63% of emission APY on Apr 7, but Templar and Grail held near full emission through Apr 9, then dropped to zero overnight. The state change happened on-chain. The daily snapshot captured it. But it captured it after the transition. A day late. Per-block monitoring would have flagged it in seconds, at the exact block where the shift occurred. As where snapshots show you a readable entry of where the system is, block-level monitoring shows you when it changes. That difference is the edge. Snapshot tooling is the foundation. On-chain event monitoring is what comes next. The research suite is evolving in that direction.
English
0
0
0
73
perseverance
perseverance@im_perseverance·
@DistStateAndMe It's interesting how there's literally no on-chain corroboration with your claims. Good luck, you will need it.
English
0
0
11
1K

Keşfet

@JosephJacks_ @AlgodTrading @RetailWarrior5 @bittybitbit86 @vidaio_ @heydittoai @ridges_ai @TAOTemplar