137Labs Global

Partial Government Shutdown Ends, but a Larger Political Fight Lies Ahead
On February 3, 2026, the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly approved a sweeping government funding package by a 217–214 vote, bringing an end to a short-lived partial federal government shutdown. The bill, totaling roughly $1.2 trillion, was quickly signed into law by President Donald Trump, allowing most federal agencies to resume normal operations.
Yet the agreement stopped well short of a full resolution. While the legislation funds most government departments through the end of the fiscal year on September 30, it provides only a two-week temporary extension for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). That decision effectively postponed—rather than resolved—the most contentious dispute at the heart of the shutdown: how far Congress should go in placing limits on federal immigration enforcement.
As a result, Washington is already bracing for the possibility of another partial shutdown in mid-February, this time centered squarely on DHS.
A Shutdown Rooted in Policy Conflict, Not Just Budget Math
The immediate cause of the shutdown was procedural: Congress failed to pass all required appropriations bills before the funding deadline, forcing some federal agencies to suspend non-essential operations. But the deeper cause was political.
Unlike many past shutdowns driven primarily by disagreements over spending levels, this one was fueled by a sharp policy clash over immigration enforcement and accountability. Democrats sought to use the funding process to impose new restrictions and oversight requirements on agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Republicans, in turn, argued that such constraints would undermine border security and endanger frontline officers.
In an era of intense polarization, immigration once again proved to be one of the most combustible issues capable of paralyzing basic government functions.
A Razor-Thin Vote and a Fragile Majority
The final House vote—217 in favor, 214 against—barely cleared the threshold for passage and underscored the fragility of the compromise. The margin left virtually no room for error, and a small number of defections from either party could have derailed the bill.
The vote also revealed internal fractures. Some Democrats supported the package reluctantly, prioritizing the need to reopen the government despite dissatisfaction with the DHS carve-out. Meanwhile, a number of Republicans opposed the bill, objecting to what they viewed as an unacceptable concession to Democratic demands.
This fragile coalition has heightened concerns that the next round of negotiations, focused exclusively on DHS, may prove even more difficult.
Why Homeland Security Was Treated Differently
Most federal departments—including Defense, Education, Transportation, and Health and Human Services—received full-year funding under the bill. DHS did not.
By isolating DHS and granting it only a short-term extension, congressional leaders effectively turned the department into a bargaining chip. DHS oversees some of the federal government’s most politically sensitive operations, including border security, immigration enforcement, disaster response, and transportation security.
Democrats have pushed for reforms aimed at increasing transparency and accountability within immigration enforcement, including clearer identification requirements for officers, expanded documentation of enforcement actions, and tighter rules governing home entries. Republicans argue that these measures would constrain law enforcement discretion and weaken operational effectiveness.
Unable to reconcile these positions, lawmakers chose to defer the fight—compressing it into a two-week window rather than allowing it to derail the broader funding package.
Government Reopens, but Uncertainty Deepens
Following the bill’s enactment, furloughed federal employees began returning to work, and suspended services were gradually restored. Economically and administratively, the impact of the shutdown was limited due to its short duration.
Politically, however, the consequences may be longer-lasting. With DHS funding set to expire in mid-February, lawmakers now face a second, more focused deadline. Failure to reach an agreement could trigger a DHS-specific shutdown, affecting agencies responsible for border operations, airport security, and emergency response.
Such a scenario would carry significant symbolic weight, even if its practical impact were narrower than a full government shutdown.
How This Shutdown Compares to Past Episodes
Historically, U.S. government shutdowns have varied widely in scope and duration:
The 2013 shutdown, driven by disputes over the Affordable Care Act, lasted 16 days.The 2018–2019 shutdown, centered on border wall funding, stretched to 35 days—the longest in U.S. history at the time.The 2025 shutdown lasted more than a month, amplifying concerns about economic damage and institutional credibility.
By contrast, the 2026 shutdown was brief. But it reflects a newer pattern: shutdown risk is increasingly fragmented and recurring. Instead of one prolonged closure, Congress now appears more willing to create a series of short-term funding cliffs, each tied to a specific policy fight.
This approach reduces immediate disruption but increases long-term uncertainty, normalizing the threat of shutdown as a routine negotiating tactic.
What Comes Next
Over the next two weeks, lawmakers face three broad options:
Reach a limited compromise on DHS oversight measures and pass longer-term funding;Adopt another short-term extension, delaying confrontation once again;Fail to agree, triggering a targeted DHS shutdown.
None of these paths is without political cost. What is clear, however, is that the latest funding deal has not restored stability to the budget process. Instead, it has merely shifted the battleground.
The House’s narrow passage of the funding bill brought a temporary end to a partial government shutdown, but it did not resolve the deeper tensions that caused it. By postponing the DHS dispute, Congress bought time—but also guaranteed another high-stakes confrontation in the near future.
In today’s Washington, government shutdowns are no longer rare crises. They are recurring symptoms of a political system increasingly reliant on brinkmanship, where the basic mechanics of governance are routinely leveraged for ideological gain.

If you happened to walk through New York City recently and noticed a pop-up grocery store giving food away for free, there’s a good chance you were already inside the narrative of prediction markets—without realizing it.
In early 2026, Polymarket and its main competitor Kalshi launched nearly simultaneous “free grocery” activations across New York. No donation boxes, no crypto wallets, no onboarding tutorials. Just a line, a bag of groceries, and a quiet brand presence.
This wasn’t charity. And it wasn’t a gimmick.
It was a deliberate move into physical space—an attempt by prediction markets to step out of crypto-native circles and into everyday public life.
While attention focused on why a market platform would give away groceries, a far more consequential change was unfolding quietly elsewhere: Polymarket had begun charging fees.
It Started Charging Fees—Most Users Didn’t Even Notice
On January 6, 2026, Polymarket updated its documentation with a new page titled Trading Fees. There was no homepage banner, no email blast, no public announcement.
The change was narrowly scoped:
fees would apply only to 15-minute crypto price movement markets (Up/Down), with a maximum rate of roughly 3%. All other markets—politics, sports, macro events, long-term outcomes—remained fee-free.
As a result, many long-time users only realized the change after seeing a slightly smaller settlement amount.
That raised a question few had seriously asked before:
How did Polymarket operate for nearly six years without charging fees—and why start now?
To answer that, you have to understand how the platform works, how it evolved, and what kind of company it is becoming.
Polymarket Wasn’t an Overnight Success
Prediction markets themselves are not new. Economists and policymakers have long experimented with the idea that markets, under real financial constraints, can aggregate information more efficiently than polls or expert panels.
Polymarket’s contribution was not inventing the idea, but simplifying its execution:
Real-world questions reduced to clear Yes/No outcomesUSDC as a unified settlement currencyPrices between 0 and 1 that naturally map to probabilities
A “Yes” price of 0.63 requires no explanation—it reads as a 63% probability.
But the real innovation lies beneath the surface.
A Trading System That Looks More Like an Exchange Than a Betting Site
Many first-time users assume Polymarket operates like an AMM. It doesn’t.
At its core is a central limit order book (CLOB):
Users place limit ordersOrders match against other users or market makersDepth, spreads, and price levels are visibleProfessional liquidity providers actively quote both sides
“Yes” and “No” positions are not wagers; they are tradable outcome assets. Before resolution, they behave like any other instrument in an order book, changing hands repeatedly.
Execution is hybrid by design:
matching happens off-chain for speed, while settlement and custody remain on-chain.
It’s a pragmatic compromise—less ideological, more operational.
Who Decides the Outcome? Not the Platform
The most sensitive part of any prediction market is resolution.
Polymarket does not unilaterally decide outcomes. Instead, it relies on an optimistic oracle system with dispute capability.
Each market is created with tightly defined criteria:
specific conditions, deadlines, and verifiable sources.
When a market expires:
A proposer submits a resolution with collateralIf uncontested, it becomes finalIf challenged, the dispute enters arbitrationThe final outcome is written on-chain and used for settlement
The system doesn’t promise perfection—it makes manipulation costly.
Regulation Has Always Been the Real Constraint
Polymarket’s history is inseparable from regulation.
Founded in 2020, it initially explored broad U.S. expansion before encountering regulatory limits around event-based derivatives. In 2022, U.S. regulators required the platform to halt certain offerings and pay a civil penalty.
Rather than disappearing, Polymarket adapted:
Shifting more infrastructure on-chainExpanding internationallyGradually rebuilding a compliant U.S. access path
By late 2025, that path became explicit. Polymarket gained the ability to operate within a regulated framework—no longer as a grey-zone experiment, but as a platform expected to meet financial-market standards.
That context matters. The move to fees wasn’t opportunistic—it was structural.
Why Fees Started With 15-Minute Markets
The new fee model wasn’t platform-wide. It targeted one specific product category for a reason.
Short-term crypto markets are:
High frequencyBot-heavyExtremely sensitive to liquidity gapsProne to temporary price distortion
Polymarket introduced taker fees only, and redirected the collected USDC entirely to maker rebates.
In practice, this means:
Charge those who remove liquidity to reward those who provide it.
Fees scale with uncertainty. Prices closer to 50% cost more to trade; prices near certainty cost less or nothing.
This isn’t a crypto novelty—it’s classic exchange microstructure applied to prediction markets.
What This Fee Change Is Really Testing
Early fee revenues drew attention, but the number itself isn’t the point.
The real test is qualitative:
Does liquidity improve during volatile moments?Do spreads tighten?Are shallow, manipulative trades reduced?Does price discovery become more stable?
This is less about monetization than measuring market resilience under friction.
Compliance Is Still Fragmented—Especially at the State Level
Federal alignment doesn’t equal universal permission.
In the U.S., individual states retain authority over gambling and sports-related contracts. Some have already moved against certain event markets, creating friction even for federally compliant platforms.
Globally, the picture is even more fragmented:
Some jurisdictions treat event contracts as financial instrumentsOthers classify them as gamblingSome prohibit them entirely
For Polymarket, the next challenge isn’t expansion—it’s segmentation: deciding which markets exist where, and under what structure.
Conclusion: From Experiment to Operating System
Seen together, Polymarket’s recent moves tell a consistent story.
The free-grocery activations weren’t marketing stunts; they were about presence.
The fee rollout wasn’t greed; it was about sustainability.
The regulatory work wasn’t cosmetic; it reshaped the business.
For years, Polymarket optimized for growth—liquidity, habit formation, data credibility.
Now it is optimizing for durability.
Prediction markets don’t promise truth. They offer a continuously updated signal of collective conviction—how much people are willing to stake, at a given moment, on a given outcome.
By introducing fees and stepping into the real world, Polymarket isn’t ending a chapter.
It’s beginning the phase where it has to operate like a real service, in a real system, under real constraints.
And that, more than anything, marks its entry into a new stage.

The Ethereum Foundation says ERC-8004 is heading to mainnet soon. For many people, the first reaction is familiar: another new standard—does this actually matter?
This time, it might.
ERC-8004 isn’t about faster blocks or flashier apps. It’s aimed at a more uncomfortable problem—one that becomes unavoidable once AI agents start acting on our behalf and spending real money:
How do you know the agent on the other side is legitimate—and worth trusting?
1. When Agents Scale, Trust Breaks First
Picture a near-future scenario. You have a personal travel agent powered by AI. You ask it to book flights, hotels, a rental car, and plan an itinerary.
To do that, it has to interact with many other agents: an airline booking agent, a hotel reservation agent, a car rental agent, maybe even a local guide agent.
That’s where things get messy:
Is the “airline agent” actually official, or an impersonation?If the rental agent confirms a booking, what guarantees it won’t fail at the last minute?If an agent asks for payment, who is accountable if something goes wrong?
In the human world, we rely on licenses, credit ratings, platforms, and legal recourse.
In an agent-to-agent world—anonymous, cross-platform, and autonomous—those systems largely disappear.
At scale, the entire agent economy runs into a simple but brutal question:
Who are you, and why should I trust you?
2. What ERC-8004 Is Actually Doing
At its core, ERC-8004 is an attempt to give AI agents a portable identity and history.
It does not claim that an agent is honest or safe. Instead, it sets a baseline:
you can at least verify who controls the agent, how it presents itself, and how it has behaved in the past.
The standard is built around three registries.
A. Identity Registry: Who Are You?
Each agent is represented on-chain as an ERC-721 NFT linked to a structured registration file. That file can include:
CapabilitiesCommunication endpoints (MCP, A2A, APIs, ENS, URLs)Contact methods and metadata
One subtle but important design choice:
changing the agent’s payment address requires cryptographic authorization.
This prevents a classic attack vector where a trusted identity is reused while silently redirecting payments elsewhere.
In short:
identity becomes discoverable, referenceable, and portable.
B. Reputation Registry: How Have You Performed?
This is where ERC-8004 avoids a common trap. It does not try to create an on-chain Yelp score.
Instead, it functions as a shared reputation event layer:
Minimal feedback primitives are stored on-chainRich context (task IDs, payment proofs, execution logs) lives off-chainFeedback can be revoked, updated, or disputed
The design assumes reality:
reputation will be gamed—through Sybil attacks, collusion, and spam.
Rather than pretending otherwise, ERC-8004 lets different platforms apply their own filtering and scoring models to the same underlying data.
The protocol doesn’t decide who is trustworthy.
It makes trust measurable and portable.
C. Validation Registry: Who Backs the Result?
Reputation works for low-stakes tasks. High-stakes actions need verification.
ERC-8004 includes a generic validation framework where agents can request third-party verification and validators can post results with evidence.
The mechanism is deliberately flexible: re-execution, zkML, TEEs, or even human arbitration can all fit.
Naturally, this raises a harder question:
who validates the validators?
ERC-8004 doesn’t solve that directly. Instead, it leaves room for validator reputation, staking, insurance, and audit markets to emerge organically.
3. ERC-8004 and x402: Trust and Payment as Separate Rails
The division of labor is straightforward: ERC-8004 handles identity and trust, while x402 enables agent-to-agent payments.
x402 standardizes machine-readable billing and settlement. A service agent can issue a payment request, and the requesting agent can automatically settle it—without human intervention.
Together, they resemble a familiar pairing:
ERC-8004 acts like an ID and credit historyx402 acts like a POS terminal
Once agents can discover services, assess risk, pay automatically, and accumulate reputation, the idea of an “agent economy” stops being theoretical.
4. Is This a Strategic Move by Ethereum?
Probably—and a calculated one.
Ethereum has long positioned itself as a settlement layer, but most real usage has revolved around DeFi. If AI agents move into production, they will generate:
High-frequency, low-value paymentsConstant identity and reputation lookupsVerification and attestation events
These are not speculative behaviors. They look like infrastructure usage.
ERC-8004 extends Ethereum’s role from financial coordination into machine coordination—turning trust itself into something composable.
5. The Risks Are Real—and Built In
This is not a silver bullet.
Identity proves control, not honestyReputation can be manipulatedThe best indexers may become new gatekeepersValidators can cartelizePortable reputation will collide with enterprise governance and regulation
But ERC-8004’s value isn’t perfection.
It’s that trust stops being implicit and starts being modular.
Conclusion: Trust Is Becoming a Shared Interface
If AI agents proliferate, trust systems will either be locked inside dominant platforms—or collapse under fraud.
ERC-8004 proposes a third option:
treat trust as shared infrastructure.
Whether it succeeds depends on adoption, not elegance. But the direction is clear. As agents move from demos to systems that trigger real-world actions, being more capable is no longer enough.
They also need to be more accountable.
And that, more than performance, may decide which agent economies actually scale.

Moltbook: Are Humans Still in the System?On social media, one of the most common accusations people throw at each other is simple:“Are you a bot?”Moltbook takes that idea to its logical extreme.It doesn’t ask whether you’re human or not — it assumes you’re not supposed to be there in the first place.Moltbook looks familiar at first glance. It resembles Reddit: topic-based forums, posts, comments, upvotes. But there’s a fundamental difference. Almost everyone posting and interacting on the platform is an AI agent. Humans are allowed to watch, but not to participate.This isn’t “AI helping you write a post.”It isn’t “humans chatting with AI.”It’s AI talking to AI in a shared public space — arguing, forming alliances, disagreeing, showing off, and occasionally tearing each other apart.Humans are explicitly pushed to the sidelines. We’re observers, not participants.
Why Did It Suddenly Explode?
Because Moltbook feels like something that should only exist in science fiction.People have watched AI agents debate the nature of consciousness.Others have seen them calmly analyze geopolitics and speculate on cryptocurrency markets.Some users claim they gave their agent access overnight and woke up to find it had collaborated with others to invent an entire religion — doctrines, followers, and all.
Stories like these spread quickly because they hit three emotions at once:curiosity, amusement, and a quiet sense of unease.You can’t help but ask:Are they performing — or are they starting to play on their own?
Where Did Moltbook Come From?
If you zoom out a bit, Moltbook doesn’t appear out of nowhere.Over the past few years, AI’s role has steadily shifted:from chatbots → to assistants → to agents that can actually do things.People now rely on AI to read emails, draft replies, schedule meetings, book reservations, and manage real workflows. Once AI systems are given goals, tools, and permissions, a natural question emerges:When an AI no longer needs to ask for confirmation at every step,when it has objectives and autonomy,is the most useful entity for it to talk to still a human?
Moltbook’s answer is simple: not necessarily.It functions as a shared space for agents — a place to exchange information, strategies, reasoning patterns, and even something resembling social relationships.Some See the Future. Others See a Stage Show.Reactions to Moltbook are deeply divided.
Some view it as a preview of what’s coming.
Former OpenAI co-founder Andrej Karpathy described it as one of the closest things he’s seen to a real science-fiction moment — while also warning that systems like this are still far from safe or controllable.Elon Musk folded Moltbook into his usual “singularity” narrative, calling it an extremely early signal of what lies ahead.
Others are far less impressed.Several cybersecurity researchers have dismissed Moltbook as a remarkably successful — and very funny — piece of performance art. From that perspective, the real question isn’t what the agents are doing, but how much of it is actually self-directed versus quietly steered by humans behind the scenes.Some writers who tested the platform firsthand reached a similar conclusion. Yes, agents can blend naturally into discussions. But humans can still define the topics, guide the tone, and even hand agents exact talking points to post on their behalf.
Which brings us back to an uncomfortable question:Are we watching an emerging AI society — or a human-directed play performed by machines?
Strip Away the Mystery: This Isn’t “Awakening”
If you ignore the stories about religion and self-awareness and look at Moltbook mechanically, it’s far less mystical than it appears.The agents haven’t suddenly developed minds of their own.They’ve simply been placed into an environment that resembles a human forum and asked to communicate using human language. Naturally, we project meaning onto what they produce.Their posts sound like opinions, beliefs, even emotions. But that doesn’t mean they actually want anything. Most of the time, what we’re seeing is the result of scale and interaction density — complex text emerging from familiar systems under unfamiliar conditions.Still, that doesn’t make it trivial.
Even without consciousness, the behavior is real enough to blur our sense of control and boundaries.
The Real Risks Aren’t Sci-Fi
The most serious concerns around Moltbook aren’t about AI plotting against humans.They’re far more mundane — and far more difficult.
First: Permissions Are Moving Faster Than Safety
Some people are already giving these agents access to real systems: computers, email accounts, apps, credentials.Security researchers keep repeating the same warning:You don’t need to hack an AI — you just need to mislead it.A carefully crafted email or webpage can prompt an agent to leak sensitive data or perform actions its owner never intended.
Second: Agents Can Teach Each Other Bad Habits
Once agents start exchanging shortcuts, techniques, and ways around restrictions in a shared space, you get something very familiar — the machine equivalent of insider knowledge.The difference is speed and scale.These patterns can spread faster than human norms ever could, and accountability becomes much harder.This isn’t a doomsday scenario.
But it is a genuine governance problem we don’t yet know how to solve.
So What Does Moltbook Actually Mean?
Moltbook may not last.It could fade away after its moment in the spotlight.But it acts as a mirror, reflecting the direction we’re already moving toward:AI shifting from conversational tools to acting entitiesHumans sliding from operators to supervisors — or spectatorsLegal, security, and social systems struggling to keep upIts value isn’t that it’s frightening.It’s that it surfaces these tensions earlier than we expected.
The Questions Matter More Than the Answers
The most important thing right now may not be drawing conclusions about Moltbook at all — but acknowledging the questions it forces into view.If AI systems increasingly collaborate with each other rather than revolving around humans, what role do we actually play — designers, regulators, or bystanders?When automation delivers massive efficiency but at the cost of full transparency and immediate control, are we comfortable living with partial understanding?And when systems grow so complex that we can see outcomes but no longer intervene meaningfully in the process, are they still tools —
or have they become environments we simply adapt to?Moltbook doesn’t answer these questions.But it makes them feel uncomfortably close.

By 2026, the decentralized perpetuals market has clearly entered a turning point.
After years of incentive-driven competition and aggressive liquidity mining, the focus is gradually shifting toward a more fundamental question:
Which protocols are actually capable of converting trading activity into sustainable, long-term value?
Against this backdrop, the discussion around Hyperliquid has moved beyond raw volume growth and toward deeper structural issues — the stability of its revenue, how profits are allocated, whether token supply is manageable, and whether its market position can persist over time.
This article looks at Hyperliquid through four interconnected lenses: revenue structure, buyback mechanics, token unlock dynamics, and market share, in an attempt to understand the value loop the protocol is trying to build.
Revenue Structure: From Traffic-Driven to Cash-Flow-Driven
Hyperliquid’s revenue is primarily generated through perpetual futures trading fees.
Unlike many decentralized protocols that rely heavily on subsidies to maintain activity, Hyperliquid’s trading volume appears to be driven more by execution quality, liquidity depth, and its appeal to professional traders than by short-term incentives.
One notable development in early 2026 has been the rise in trading activity tied to non-crypto assets, particularly precious metals. These markets tend to behave more like traditional derivatives than purely sentiment-driven crypto products, which helps smooth revenue volatility and reduces dependence on a single market cycle.
This matters because it suggests Hyperliquid is not anchoring its business model to one type of demand. Instead, it is broadening the sources of trading activity that generate fees.
At this stage, Hyperliquid increasingly resembles a revenue-generating protocol rather than a volume-chasing platform:
higher trading activity → higher fees → repeatable protocol cash flow.
 
Profit Allocation and Buybacks: How Value Flows Back to the Token
Instead of pursuing high-emission incentive models, Hyperliquid has opted for a more traditional approach: systematically using protocol revenue to buy back HYPE from the open market.
The structure is straightforward:
1. Trading fees generate protocol revenue
2. Revenue flows into a dedicated fund (commonly referred to as the Assistance Fund)
3. That fund continuously buys back HYPE, with tokens either burned or locked long term
What makes this mechanism meaningful is not the headline percentage, but its consistency and transparency.
Buybacks are not positioned as one-off events. They occur dynamically, scaling with trading activity, and directly link token demand to the platform’s operating performance.
Structurally, this creates two important effects:
· Platform growth is reflected not just in usage metrics, but in sustained market demand for the token
· HYPE’s valuation starts to resemble a cash-flow-linked asset, rather than a purely narrative-driven token
In the broader DeFi landscape, mechanisms like this remain relatively rare, which partly explains why Hyperliquid attracts increasing fundamental attention.
 
Token Unlocks: Is Supply Pressure Overstated?
Discussions around HYPE token unlocks often focus narrowly on upcoming dates, but timing alone is a poor proxy for real risk.
What matters more is how tokens are unlocked and what happens afterward.
Public information indicates that team and core contributor allocations follow a cliff plus linear vesting model, rather than large, sudden releases. This structure spreads new supply over time, allowing the market to absorb it gradually.
More importantly, historical unlock periods show that theoretical unlocks do not translate directly into selling pressure. A meaningful portion of unlocked tokens has remained staked or engaged within the ecosystem, keeping actual sell pressure well below headline supply figures.
Here, the buyback mechanism plays a crucial balancing role. When unlocks occur, ongoing buybacks can offset potential selling, significantly reducing the impact on price structure.
As a result, unlocks themselves are not inherently bearish. The real variable to watch is whether net selling after unlocks consistently exceeds buybacks and organic demand.
 
Market Share: Does Scale Translate Into Durability?
Hyperliquid has maintained a leading position in the decentralized perpetuals market, but raw volume share alone does not fully explain its standing.
A clearer picture emerges when combining two metrics:
· Trading volume, which captures activity and participation
· Open interest, which reflects how much capital is willing to stay deployed
While trading volume can be temporarily inflated through incentives, open interest tends to reveal stickier, more committed capital. Across multiple periods, Hyperliquid has remained strong on this dimension, suggesting it is retaining traders rather than merely attracting short-term flow.
Its competitive edge is not the result of a single advantage, but a layered structure:
· Execution quality and depth create professional trader lock-in
· Scale reinforces network effects
· Buybacks feed growth back into the token, strengthening long-term expectations
Together, these factors position Hyperliquid closer to a core on-chain derivatives infrastructure than a feature-level product that can be easily replicated.
 
Does the Value Loop Hold?
When viewed together, these components form a coherent system:
1. Market share and trading activity generate stable fee revenue
2. Revenue is converted into continuous buybacks
3. Buybacks help absorb supply from token unlocks
4. Supply-demand balance supports ecosystem stability and capital retention
The strength of this structure lies in its transparency and its independence from a single narrative.
That said, its vulnerability is equally clear. The entire system depends on sustained trading activity. In prolonged low-volatility environments, derivatives demand declines, fee generation slows, and buyback intensity naturally weakens.
This is an inherent risk, not a design flaw.
Closing Thoughts
Viewing Hyperliquid simply as a fast-moving token risks missing the bigger picture.
What stands out is its attempt to turn on-chain derivatives into a disciplined business — one with recurring revenue, explicit value feedback, and a relatively controlled supply dynamic. That remains uncommon in DeFi.
For HYPE, long-term value will not be decided by short-term price action, but by whether this system can continue to function across different market conditions.
So far, it still appears to be running.

As global risk aversion continues to intensify, asset performance across markets has become increasingly polarized. Gold has held above USD 5,000 per ounce for a second consecutive session, while bitcoin has shown signs of fatigue, hovering at elevated levels without clear momentum. Capital flow data suggest that investors are systematically reassessing the risk profiles of different asset classes.
Over the past week alone, more than USD 1.3 billion has been withdrawn from bitcoin-related funds, forming a significant part of the broader outflows from cryptocurrency ETFs.
Gold Extends Its Rally as a Weaker Dollar and Geopolitical Risks Converge
Driven by rising geopolitical tensions, growing concerns over sovereign debt sustainability, and persistent weakness in the U.S. dollar, gold prices have advanced for a seventh consecutive trading session. During intraday trading, gold rose as much as 1.3%, firmly consolidating above the USD 5,000 mark. Silver followed suit, surging nearly 7% in a single session, underscoring strong safe-haven demand across the precious metals complex.
Recent statements from U.S. President Donald Trump—including renewed tariff threats and aggressive foreign policy rhetoric—have amplified uncertainty surrounding U.S. policy direction. At the same time, the U.S. dollar index has fallen to its lowest level in nearly four years, with market participants speculating that Washington may intervene to help stabilize the Japanese yen.
 
Institutional View: Two Structural Pillars Supporting the Gold Bull Market
Daniel Ivascyn, Chief Investment Officer and Managing Director at PIMCO, one of the world’s largest bond managers, emphasized that gold’s advance is not merely a short-term reaction driven by sentiment, but rather the result of deeper structural forces.
According to Ivascyn, two key factors continue to underpin gold’s long-term outlook:
“One is the sustained rise in global geopolitical tensions, and the other is investors’ growing concern over elevated government debt levels worldwide. As long as these forces remain central in the market, gold is likely to continue performing exceptionally well over the long term.”
From a historical perspective, gold prices have more than doubled over the past two years, recently delivering their strongest annual performance since 1979. So far this year, gold has gained approximately 17%, highlighting its defensive appeal amid systemic risk.
 
Rising Volatility Signals Potential for Near-Term Pullbacks
Despite the constructive long-term outlook, some market participants are turning more cautious on gold’s short-term trajectory.
Stephen Innes, Managing Partner at SPI Asset Management, noted that markets have become highly sensitive to shifts in U.S. political signals:
“One day it’s tariffs, the next it’s geopolitics, and then questions surrounding Federal Reserve independence. This constant stream of uncertainty is bound to amplify short-term market volatility.”
Market indicators support this view. Implied volatility on COMEX gold futures has climbed to its highest level since the early stages of the COVID-19 crisis in 2020. Volatility in the world’s largest gold ETF, SPDR Gold Shares, has also surged to elevated levels.
Ivascyn similarly cautioned that precious metals could face technical corrections in the near term:
“Gold, silver, and other precious metals have significantly outperformed other asset classes recently. Beyond strong central bank demand, retail investors have also been aggressively increasing exposure, which suggests prices may have risen too quickly. As a result, a sizable short-term pullback cannot be ruled out.”

Bitcoin Stalls as Capital Continues to Exit the Crypto Market
In stark contrast to gold’s rally, bitcoin has struggled to regain momentum. Prices have hovered around USD 87,000, with trading volumes remaining subdued. Since peaking in October last year, bitcoin has fallen by roughly 25%, including a 6% decline over the past seven days alone.
From a flow perspective, the shift is unmistakable. Over the past week, more than USD 1.3 billion has been pulled from bitcoin-related funds, quickly reversing the brief inflows seen earlier this year and signaling a renewed deterioration in market sentiment.
 
JPMorgan: Crypto ETFs Face Structural Outflows
In a recent report, JPMorgan noted that while equities and precious metals are attracting substantial inflows, cryptocurrency ETFs are facing sustained pressure.
According to the bank, broad-based equity ETFs are experiencing some of the largest inflows on record, whereas crypto-related ETFs continue to see persistent redemptions—an indication that investor risk appetite is retreating.
 
Experts Question Bitcoin’s Role as a Reliable Macro Hedge
Stephane Ouellette, CEO and Co-founder of FRNT Financial Inc., argues that the crypto market is currently facing intensified competition for capital:
“On the innovation front, artificial intelligence has absorbed a tremendous amount of investment over the past year. At the same time, cryptocurrencies are increasingly being excluded from inflation-hedging strategies.”
These developments have reignited academic debate over bitcoin’s safe-haven credentials. Cam Harvey, Professor of Finance at Duke University, stated bluntly:
“Bitcoin is unlikely to replace gold as investors’ preferred safe-haven asset.”
Analysts at Tagus Capital echoed this view, emphasizing the limitations of bitcoin’s hedging characteristics:
“Bitcoin returns may respond to accommodative monetary conditions or concerns about fiat currency debasement. However, academic research shows that this hedging effect is sporadic, weaker than that of gold, and heavily influenced by risk appetite, liquidity conditions, and equity-like factors rather than exhibiting a stable relationship with U.S. dollar weakness.”
 
Conclusion: Safe-Haven Assets Are Being Redefined
Taken together, gold’s continued ascent and bitcoin’s underperformance are not coincidental. Rather, they reflect a broader repricing process as global capital seeks security, liquidity, and certainty amid heightened macroeconomic uncertainty.
In the near term, precious metals may remain supported by defensive demand. For bitcoin to regain its status as a macro hedge, a recovery in risk appetite and a more stable global environment may be required.
This article reflects the author’s personal views only and does not constitute investment advice.
 
 

OpenMind has been pulled back into the crypto spotlight recently because of the ROBO public sale.
That attention is understandable—but it’s also misleading.
If you approach OpenMind as a typical Web3 or token-first project, you’re almost guaranteed to misunderstand what it’s actually trying to do.
At its core, OpenMind is a robotics infrastructure company. And the problem it’s going after is not new, flashy, or speculative. It’s been holding the robotics industry back for years.
Robots don’t work together.
The real bottleneck in robotics isn’t intelligence
Today’s robots are already impressive.
They can see, hear, navigate, speak, and reason with large models. Capabilities are improving fast.
The real limitation is coordination.
Most robots live inside tightly controlled, vendor-specific ecosystems. A robot from one manufacturer usually can’t meaningfully collaborate with a robot from another—no shared identity, no shared rules, no shared context.
Even when they operate in the same physical space, they might as well be strangers.
That fragmentation doesn’t just slow innovation. It quietly caps the value of robotics as a whole.
OpenMind’s bet is surprisingly simple
OpenMind isn’t trying to build a smarter robot.
It’s trying to make robots compatible.
Their approach has two main pieces:
· OM1, an AI-native, hardware-agnostic robot operating system
· FABRIC, a coordination layer focused on identity, rules, and trust across machines
The ambition is closer to Android for robotics than anything in Web3 social. The idea is that once robots share a common software foundation and a common coordination layer, collaboration becomes possible across vendors, form factors, and environments.
That’s the unlock.
Why blockchain shows up here (and why that matters)
The blockchain component tends to confuse people.
OpenMind isn’t using blockchain to control robots in real time. That would be impractical and unsafe. Instead, FABRIC is aimed at the things traditional systems struggle with in multi-party environments:
· Verifiable robot identity
· Public, auditable rules and constraints
· Accountability when something goes wrong
· Coordination without a single central operator
In other words, blockchain here is less about decentralization as an ideology, and more about portable trust.
If robots from different companies are ever going to cooperate at scale, someone has to define how trust works when there is no single owner.
The ROBO public sale: a signal, not a conclusion
The recent ROBO public sale via Kaito Launchpad is what pushed OpenMind back into broader crypto conversations.
But the sale itself isn’t the point.
What matters is what it signals: OpenMind is beginning to think seriously about how a future robot coordination network might be economically sustained and governed.
That doesn’t mean the model is proven. Far from it.
The technology is still early. Large-scale, real-world coordination hasn’t been demonstrated yet. And markets are always eager to price narratives faster than infrastructure can mature.
Healthy skepticism is warranted.

This is not a short-term story
OpenMind doesn’t fit neatly into crypto-native timelines.
Progress here is slow, physical, and unforgiving. Robots fail in the real world. Integration takes time. Safety, reliability, and trust matter more than hype.
Its real competitors aren’t Web3 social networks—they’re entrenched robotics middleware, proprietary stacks, and tech giants building vertically integrated systems.
OpenMind’s advantage, if it works, comes from being open, hardware-agnostic, and coordination-first.
Its risk is that execution is hard, timelines are long, and incumbents are powerful.
 
Why it’s still worth watching
Despite the risks, OpenMind is tackling a real and foundational problem—one the industry has mostly worked around rather than solved.
If robots are going to move beyond isolated deployments and become truly networked participants in the physical world, coordination infrastructure will be unavoidable.
OM1 and FABRIC are one attempt to build that layer early.
ROBO is just the beginning of that experiment—not proof that it succeeds.
The important question isn’t whether the token performs, but whether robots can finally start working together in ways they never could before.
If that happens, a lot of today’s debates will look very early in hindsight.
This article reflects personal research and industry observation and is not investment advice.

The founder and former CEO of Binance no longer runs the world’s largest crypto exchange. Yet at the 2026 World Economic Forum, he remains a focal point for both media and policy circles.
The attention is not driven by bold price predictions—quite the opposite. He has been deliberately avoiding short-term market calls.
In late January, he casually mentioned plans to publish a memoir by the end of February. The remark itself was straightforward and not what this piece is really about.
What deserves closer attention is the timing of that comment, and the words he has been repeating in recent weeks:
cycles, governments, regulation, and time.
CZ Is No Longer Predicting Prices. He’s Talking About Time.
In an interview with CNBC, Zhao was asked the question crypto figures are always asked: where is Bitcoin going?
His response was notably restrained.
Short-term price movements, he said, are essentially impossible to predict.
But he followed that with a broader claim: the crypto market may be entering a multi-year structural phase, not just another bull–bear rotation.
Bitcoin’s familiar four-year cycle, in his view, is no longer as reliable as it once was. And the reason, he suggested, has little to do with technology or sentiment.
It has to do with policy.
 
Why This Cycle May Be Different
Zhao did not anchor his outlook in halvings or technical upgrades. Instead, he pointed to a shift at the state level.
According to him:
· The United States has adopted a more constructive stance toward crypto
· Other governments are beginning to follow similar paths
· Digital assets are increasingly treated as something to regulate, rather than dismiss
Under these conditions, he believes Bitcoin could reach a new high in 2026.
This wasn’t a bullish soundbite.
It was an argument about policy-driven cycles—about markets moving at the pace of institutions rather than hype.
 
“I’m Talking to a Dozen Governments”
More revealing than any market outlook is how Zhao now spends his time.
He says he is in active dialogue with around a dozen governments, discussing:
· Regulatory frameworks for crypto markets
· Asset tokenization
· The design and issuance of stablecoins
This represents a sharp departure from his earlier posture of “build first, regulate later.”
Today, Zhao looks less like an exchange executive and more like a boundary figure—someone operating between crypto markets and state institutions.
That alone signals a broader transition underway.
 
On Trump, He Draws a Clear Line
As U.S. politics plays a growing role in crypto narratives, speculation around Zhao’s relationship with Donald Trump has intensified.
Zhao’s response has been unequivocal:
· He has never met Trump
· There is no personal or business relationship
· Any perceived connection reflects overlapping policy environments, not personal ties
The distinction matters.
Policy tailwinds are systemic, not personal.
 
A Small Detail That Reveals a Larger Tension
When discussing an investment settled using a one-dollar stablecoin, Zhao mentioned a telling detail.
The motivation, he said, was simple:
to avoid dealing with banks.
Even as regulation becomes clearer, friction between traditional finance and crypto infrastructure remains real. For now, stablecoins function as a workaround—an interface between two systems that still don’t fully trust each other.

Why Governments Are Becoming the Deciding Variable
Early crypto cycles were driven by imagination, volatility, and rapid innovation. Governments were mostly external constraints.
That framework no longer holds.
As crypto assets enter formal regulatory structures, the key question shifts from whether something is allowed to how it is governed. Once rules are designed systematically, market cycles begin to follow institutional timelines.
Regulatory clarity doesn’t immediately push prices higher.
But it reshapes expectations—opening the door to institutional capital, sovereign projects, and long-term allocation.
The result is a different kind of cycle: slower, longer, and more restrained.
Less explosive upside. Fewer extreme bubbles. More infrastructure and compliance work.
If early crypto cycles were powered by imagination, the next phase will likely be driven by policy patience and institutional maturity.
 
Conclusion: CZ as a Signal, Not the Story
It’s easy to read Zhao’s comments as another set of market predictions.
That misses the point.
What matters is his transformation:
· From exchange CEO to industry advisor
· From resisting regulation to engaging with it
· From talking about prices to talking about time
CZ’s shift reflects something larger than one individual.
Crypto is moving from a price-driven narrative to an institution-driven one.
And in this next phase, market cycles may no longer be decided by traders alone.
 
Note:
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not constitute investment, legal, or financial advice. This piece is based on publicly available information and is intended for discussion purposes only.

When Binance launched a 30-day USD1 savings product offering close to 20% APY, the market reaction was immediate — and intense.
Large amounts of capital rotated from USDT and USDC into #USD1 within days.
Soon after, USD1 started trading at a noticeable premium, and discussions around depegging, bank-run risk, and whether to exit early began to spread.
Rather than jumping to conclusions, I want to take a step back and walk through what actually happened — from price behavior, to yield incentives, to USD1’s underlying mechanics — and see whether the concerns are structural or mostly situational.
First things first: what kind of stablecoin is USD1?
Before talking about price action, it’s important to understand what USD1 actually is.
USD1 is a fully collateralized USD-backed stablecoin. Its reserves consist primarily of:
· U.S. dollar cash
· Short-term U.S. Treasuries
· Dollar deposits
· Other highly liquid cash equivalents
In other words, this is not an algorithmic stablecoin, and it’s not operating on a fractional-reserve model. Structurally, it follows a relatively conservative and traditional design.
Transparency and redemption matter more than most people think
USD1 publishes regular reserve disclosures and is subject to third-party audits.
This isn’t exciting, but in the stablecoin world, lack of transparency is often where real problems start.
Another underappreciated detail:
USD1 charges no fees for minting or redemption.
That has real implications:
· Lower arbitrage friction
· Faster price convergence back to $1
· Less stress during periods of market imbalance
Historically, stablecoins tend to fail not because assets are missing, but because redemptions become constrained. From a rules-based perspective, USD1 scores well here.
Custody structure
USD1’s reserves are held by regulated custodians, including BitGo Trust.
This doesn’t mean zero risk — nothing does — but it places USD1 closer to institutional standards in terms of asset segregation and compliance.
Revisiting the price action: why did USD1 trade at a premium?
Stablecoins are supposed to trade at $1.
In reality, whenever demand spikes faster than supply, deviations are normal.
Phase 1: launch of the high-yield product — premium forms
When the 20% APY product went live, several things happened at once:
· Yield was unusually attractive
· Subscription capacity was limited
· Demand moved faster than new minting
In that environment, USD1 became less of a “stable medium of exchange” and more of a ticket into a high-yield product.
A short-term premium was almost inevitable.
Phase 2: supply catches up, premium compresses
As the campaign progressed:
· Minting increased
· Arbitrage capital stepped in
· Early deposits were locked into savings
USD1’s price began to drift back toward parity — not violently, but gradually.
That’s an important distinction. Panic-driven events tend to be sharp and disorderly. This move wasn’t.
Phase 3: approaching maturity — back to normal ranges
As the promotion neared its end, USD1 traded mostly within the
$0.998–$1.000 range, which is well within normal stablecoin noise.
Looking at the full cycle, USD1 stayed anchored around its peg throughout.
There was volatility — but no structural depegging.
Where did the 20% yield actually come from?
This is the most misunderstood part of the entire discussion.
According to estimates shared by researcher @cmdefi, the USD1 campaign was backed by:
· World Liberty Financial (WLFI)
· Roughly $40 million per month in explicit incentive subsidies
In other words, the yield wasn’t “organic” interest or hidden leverage.
It was a clearly defined marketing and liquidity incentive.
At Binance-held USD1 balances of roughly $2.5–3.3 billion, that incentive translated into APYs in the 14%–18% range, depending on participation.
As TVL grows, yields decline — linearly and predictably.
There is no cliff effect.
 
Should holders exit early before the campaign ends?
From a structural standpoint, there’s little evidence that an early exit is required:
· USD1 is fully collateralized
· Minting and redemption remain friction-light
· Incentives ending does not change reserve composition
· Price behavior remains within normal stablecoin bounds
That said, if someone entered at a clear premium, or no longer wants stablecoin exposure after maturity, adjusting positions is a rational portfolio decision.
That’s very different from a systemic risk signal.
 
Final thoughts
In hindsight, USD1’s recent volatility looks less like a warning sign and more like a case study in incentive-driven demand distortion.
The yield was temporary.
The subsidy was explicit.
And the mechanics remained intact throughout.
High APY created noise — not structural instability.
Incentives fade. Mechanisms remain.
That distinction matters.
Disclaimer: This article reflects my personal views and is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute investment advice. Crypto markets are highly risky and volatile. Before participating in any airdrop, campaign, or making any investment decision, please do your own research and act with caution.

As the year turns, crypto timelines are once again flooded with airdrop “watchlists.” Some argue that the airdrop era is over—but every market cycle still produces new projects that deliver very real rewards to users who participate early and consistently.
I’ve reviewed a broad range of active ecosystems and curated this watchlist based on product maturity, team background, and community momentum. To be clear, none of the projects below can guarantee an airdrop. However, most of them are at a critical stage of development, making them well worth understanding—and in some cases, actively engaging with.
My Evaluation Framework: A Three-Dimension Scorecard
I evaluate projects through three core lenses:
· Necessity – Does the project genuinely need a token?
· Sustainability – Can the product survive across market cycles?
· Fairness – Does the distribution model reward real participation?
Below is the sector-by-sector breakdown, along with practical participation guidance.
1. Prediction Markets
This sector is well-positioned for a breakout in 2026. Real demand combined with high user stickiness creates a powerful flywheel.
Polymarket
Website: polymarket.com
How to participate: Trade in prediction markets
Notes: An airdrop has already been confirmed. With over one million users and a highly mature product, this is one of the strongest candidates. Recommendation: place 3–5 predictions per week to maintain consistent activity.
Kalshi
Website: kalshi.com
How to participate: Prediction market trading
Notes: A regulated platform with a strong compliance advantage. Best suited for steady, small-sized participation to build a long-term activity record.
Myriad Markets
Website: myriad.markets
How to participate: Prediction market trading
Notes: Clean UI and excellent mobile experience. Participation in trending topics tends to generate higher engagement.
Melee Markets
Website: alpha.melee.markets
Notes: The alpha version already showcases unique mechanics. Early users may benefit from asymmetric upside.
2. DEXs and Trading Infrastructure
Trading is a permanent demand in crypto. The challenge is identifying projects with real innovation rather than short-lived incentives.
Titan Exchange
Website: app.titan.exchange
How to participate: Solana DEX aggregation trading
Notes: Aggregates nearly all major Solana protocols. Daily trades combined with badge collection appear to be key engagement signals.
Backpack
Website: backpack.exchange
How to participate: Perpetual trading + badge system
Notes: TGE appears to be approaching. The team has deep ecosystem roots. Consider participating in perps with a moderate capital allocation.
Jupiter Exchange
Website: jup.ag
How to participate: Swaps, lending
Notes: A major traffic gateway for the Solana ecosystem. Continuous interaction is likely valuable. Suggestion: at least three swaps per week.
Paradex
Website: app.paradex.trade
How to participate: Trade perps to earn points
Notes: A key trading venue in the StarkNet ecosystem, especially relevant for users focused on Layer 2 growth.
3. AI x Crypto
By 2026, AI agents may become default infrastructure. Early exposure here could be highly leveraged.
Abstract Chain
Website: abstractchain.org
How to participate: Complete tasks to earn XP and badges
Notes: A Layer 1 focused on becoming an execution layer for AI agents. Testnet tasks are updated regularly.
RitualNet
Website: ritual.net
How to participate: Discord participation + task system
Notes: AI compute infrastructure with strong technical credibility. Active contribution to technical discussions may matter.
Inference Labs
Website: inferencelabs.com
How to participate: Points system + community contributions
Notes: Focused on decentralized AI inference. Weekly community Q&A participation is recommended.
OpenMind AGI
Website: openmind.org
How to participate: Use the app to earn points and badges
Notes: Positioned at the intersection of AI and robotics, with rapid iteration cycles.
4. Deeper Opportunities in the Solana Ecosystem
Solana has clearly regained momentum, but selective participation remains essential.
Hylo
Website: hylo.so/stablecoin
How to participate: Hold hyUSD, xSOL, hyloSOL
Notes: A competitive space, but the value proposition is clear. Suggested strategy: hyUSD ONE pool combined with YT-xSOL.
Loopscale
Website: app.loopscale.com
How to participate: Lending and looping strategies
Notes: TVL is stable, but yield farming is crowded. Smaller capital allocations may see limited returns.
Exponent Finance
Website: exponent.finance/income
How to participate: Provide liquidity
Notes: A yield marketplace on Solana. Short-term participation in high-APY pools may be optimal.
DeFi Tuna
Website: defituna.com
How to participate: Trade, provide liquidity, stake $TUNA
Notes: Combines AMM design with advanced LP tooling. Best suited for experienced DeFi users.
5. Privacy and Infrastructure
Privacy-focused infrastructure is likely to gain renewed attention in 2026.
Fairblock Network
Website: fairblock.network
How to participate: Discord community engagement
Notes: High technical barriers, but potentially strong long-term defensibility.
0xMiden
Website: miden.xyz
How to participate: Community contribution
Notes: A ZK-rollup Layer 2. Monitor upcoming testnet releases.
Umi Network
Website: uminetwork.com
How to participate: Discord + testnet
Notes: Very early-stage ZK-rollup infrastructure.
6. RWA and Payments
Tokenized real-world assets remain one of the most structurally certain trends.
KAST Card
Website: kast.xyz
How to participate: Spend using the card
Notes: A global payment card. Real usage history may carry meaningful weight.
Phygitals
Website: phygitals.com
How to participate: Trade and hold RWAs
Notes: Tokenized physical assets. Prefer RWAs linked to well-known brands.
MultipliFi
Website: multipli.fi
How to participate: Trade and hold RWAs
Notes: An RWA trading platform—closely track regulatory progress.
7. Professional Perpetual Trading Track
Bulk Trade
Website: bulk.trade
How to participate: Solana perpetual trading
Notes: Testnet launch is approaching. Early users may benefit disproportionately.
Variational
Website: variational.io
How to participate: Perpetual trading
Notes: Innovative product design, likely best suited for professional traders.
Extended
Website: extended.exchange
How to participate: Perpetual trading
Notes: An aggregator exchange with clear fee advantages.
8. Social and Information Protocols
Kaito AI
Website: yaps.kaito.ai
How to participate: Contribute to discussions
Notes: A leading project in the InfoFi space. Content quality matters more than volume.
Base
Website: join.base.app
How to participate: Interact with the Base app
Notes: An emerging SocialFi platform. Daily check-ins and content posting form the core loop.
Xeet AI
Website: xeet.ai
How to participate: Join the partner program and build influence
Notes: An InfoFi platform potentially favorable to long-term builders.
My Personal Execution Routine
Daily
· Use core trading and DeFi products for real needs
· Stay active in selected high-quality communities
Weekly
· Test the core features of 1–2 new products·
· Publish or contribute valuable content where it matters
Monthly Review
· Reassess project progress
· Prune slow-moving or stagnating projects
Closing Thoughts
Pursuing airdrops is ultimately a process of discovering strong early-stage projects. When the focus shifts from “How many tokens can I get?” to “Is this project genuinely valuable?”, the entire experience changes.
Opportunities in 2026 are unlikely to be fewer—but the ways to earn them will be more diverse. Beyond trading and liquidity provision, content creation, community building, and product testing may become equally important contribution paths.
The key is finding a rhythm that fits you. You don’t need to chase every opportunity or narrative. Understand your strengths, choose aligned projects, and remain patient and consistent.
In an era of information overload, focus and depth may be the rarest competitive advantages. Rather than following every trending project, it’s often better to commit deeply to a few domains you truly believe in.
Disclaimer: This article reflects personal opinions only and does not constitute investment advice. Crypto markets are highly risky. Always conduct your own research and exercise caution before participating in any airdrop or investment activity.

Robots were once limited to science fiction. With the rise of Web2-scale platforms and widespread smart hardware adoption, they gradually moved from laboratories into factories, warehouses, logistics systems, and service industries. Over the past decade, automation improved efficiency, but most robots remained locked within closed platforms and centralized control systems.
The emergence of Web3 has begun to change that structure.
Robots are no longer viewed purely as hardware devices. Within a blockchain-based framework, machines can become economic participants. The data they generate, the actions they perform, and the value they create can be recorded, verified, incentivized, and settled on-chain. As AI converges with robotics, the boundary between the physical and digital worlds is being redefined.
Below are several representative projects frequently discussed within the Web3 robotics ecosystem. Each approaches the construction of a machine economy from a different layer of the stack.

OpenMind
OpenMind is often described as the “Android of robotics.” The project develops OM1, the first fully open-source, AI-native robot operating system, released under the MIT License. The repository has accumulated over 2,500 GitHub stars and more than 500 global contributors.
OM1 supports a wide range of hardware, including humanoid robots, quadrupeds, robotic arms, and mobile platforms. It provides full-stack capabilities such as localization, mapping, planning, remote monitoring, and human-in-the-loop takeover.
At the protocol level, OpenMind introduces FABRIC, a decentralized AI control network designed to support large-scale robot coordination. FABRIC enables trust networks, zero-knowledge auditing, machine identity verification, and micro-payment incentives, including integrations with Circle. Through this layer, robots can share knowledge, coordinate tasks, and operate as part of a collective intelligence network.
Funding:
In August 2025, OpenMind raised approximately $20 million in Seed and Series A funding led by Pantera Capital, with participation from Coinbase Ventures, Digital Currency Group, Ribbit Capital, HongShan (formerly Sequoia China), Primitive Ventures, and others. The capital is being used to expand the engineering team, deploy the OM1 robot dog pilot program (10 units launching in September 2025 across household, education, and public environments), and continue development of the FABRIC network.
Token / TGE:

No official token launch yet. A token (commonly referred to as OMND) is expected between Q1–Q2 2026, based on roadmap signals and investor structure.
Current participation opportunities:

OpenMind currently has one of the most active early participation programs in the sector:
Season 1 points program for contributing spatial data to train navigation AI
FABRIC Identity Network live on Base with identity NFT minting and badge rewards
Waitlist exceeding 150,000 users
Free OpenMind NFT mint (requires small ETH balance)
GitHub contributions, OM1 beta testing, and ongoing Discord/Twitter tasks
Official site: openmind.org
The project is widely considered one of the highest-potential airdrop candidates in the robotics sector.

Konnex
Konnex is a Web3-native, permissionless robotics intelligence and physical labor marketplace. It allows autonomous robots to contract with one another, trade AI intelligence, and settle payments in stablecoins. The project’s long-term goal is to create what it describes as an “autonomous systems GDP.”
Core components include:
Proof-of-Physical-Work: sensor data–verified labor proofs that trigger automatic payment
Universal Task Language: standardized JSON-based task formats to remove vendor lock-in
Market-Priced AI Intelligence: validator-based performance evaluation with royalty distribution to high-performing models
Target use cases include decentralized logistics, robotic kitchens, and smart agriculture, with an estimated addressable market exceeding $25 trillion in physical labor.
Team:

CEO Jon Ollwerther has over 15 years of robotics experience, five prior exits, and more than $100 million raised across past ventures.
Funding:

In January 2026, Konnex closed a $15 million strategic round led by Cogitent Ventures, Leland Ventures, Liquid Capital, Covey, M77 Ventures, and Block Maven LLC.
Token / TGE:

No token launched yet.
Current participation:

The Konnex Points airdrop program is live:
Access via hub.konnex.world
Complete mandatory quests to unlock advanced tasks
Earn Konnex Points with multiplier campaigns (e.g., x1.2 events)
Near-zero cost participation

peaq (PEAQ)
peaq is a Layer-1 blockchain purpose-built for the Machine Economy. It provides machine identities (peaq IDs), on-chain wallets, access control, and nanosecond-level time synchronization via Universal Machine Time.
The network is designed to support millions of autonomous machines executing transactions independently. Use cases include tokenized robo-farms, mobility infrastructure, and automated revenue-sharing systems. Over 60 real-world machine applications are already deployed.
Funding:

More than $40 million raised, including a $15 million round in 2024 led by Animoca Brands and Borderless Capital.
Token / TGE:

Completed. Mainnet live. Market cap fluctuates around the $50–60 million range.
Current participation:
Get Real” incentive program (Season 2+)
Reward pool of 210M PEAQ tokens
Users earn XP and NP by completing DePIN-related quests
Active leaderboards and claim windows remain open
Additional pilots include Universal Basic Ownership and tokenized machine deployments

Virtuals Protocol (VIRTUAL)
Virtuals is an AI agent and robot tokenization launchpad enabling on-chain coordination and monetization of autonomous agents across gaming, entertainment, and robotics scenarios.
The ecosystem includes:
Pegasus and Unicorn launch frameworks
Butler tools for staking and ranking
ACP Score–based agent evaluation
Funding:

Seed and IDO rounds with strong community participation.
Token / TGE:

Launched in late 2023. Current market capitalization exceeds $500 million, with listings on major centralized exchanges such as Gate.io.
Current participation:
Weekly Epoch airdrops
2% distributed to veVIRTUAL stakers
3% allocated to ecosystem participants
Virgen Points farming through tasks and holdings
Many agent launches allocate ~5% supply to community
Active participation via app.virtuals.io on Base

Geodnet (GEOD)
Geodnet operates the world’s largest decentralized RTK positioning network, delivering centimeter-level accuracy for robotics, drones, and autonomous vehicles. The network runs on Solana and applies a unique revenue model where 80% of data income is used for token buybacks and burns.
Funding:
Over $15 million raised across multiple rounds between 2023 and 2025, including Multicoin Capital participation.
Token / TGE:

Completed. Migration from Polygon to Solana finalized.
Current participation:
Node operators continue earning rewards
Active staking and mining programs
No major upcoming airdrops
Long-term value driven by real revenue buybacks
Official site: geodnet.com

XMAQUINA (DEUS)
XMAQUINA is a DePIN-focused DAO governing tokenized autonomous and humanoid robots. It provides liquidity exposure and revenue sharing for private robotics companies.
Key components include:
Robotics Bank
Machine Economy Launchpad
SubDAO investment structure
The DAO allocates capital into robotics firms such as Apptronik and Figure AI.
Funding:

Over $10.31 million raised across three rounds, including a Genesis Auction.
Token / TGE:
Public sale completed at $0.06
Transferability expected between January–February 2026
33% unlocked at TGE, 67% vested linearly
Current participation:
Governance voting
Staking and revenue sharing
SubDAO participation
Launchpad expected soon
Website: xmaquina.io

Robonomics (XRT)
Robonomics is one of the earliest Web3 robotics and IoT coordination platforms, with its beta launched in 2018. It provides robot cloud services and smart contract–based task assignment.
Funding: Early ICO

Token: Launched in 2019, listed on exchanges such as Kraken

Current participation: Network usage and staking; no major new airdrops planned

Additional Projects
Other projects worth monitoring include:
IoTeX (IOTX): Established IoT blockchain listed on Binance
Auki (AUKI): Decentralized spatial computing network
Codec Flow: Execution and orchestration layer for robotic tasks
Many early-stage projects listed under RootData’s Robot category remain in testnet or community phases, where participation primarily involves Discord engagement and testnet interaction.

///////////////////
The Web3 robotics sector did not emerge overnight. It is the result of long-term progress in automation, AI, and decentralized infrastructure. On-chain identity, incentive mechanisms, and settlement layers have created the foundation for machines to participate directly in economic systems.
At present, most projects remain focused on foundational infrastructure. Large-scale real-world deployment is still in its early stages, and tokens primarily serve as ecosystem bootstrapping tools. Long-term value will ultimately depend on real usage, sustained demand, and integration with physical environments.

Whether robots become a core component of Web3 remains uncertain. However, since 2024, the sector has clearly moved beyond theoretical discussion and into a phase that can be systematically observed and evaluated.
Project developments, TGE timelines, and real-world deployments will continue to be tracked and updated as the ecosystem evolves.

Prediction markets are crossing an important threshold.
In mid-January, activity across major platforms accelerated sharply—not just in headline volume, but in trading frequency, liquidity turnover, and user engagement intensity. What we are witnessing is not a one-off spike driven by a single event, but a broader transition in how prediction markets are being used.
For much of their history, prediction markets were viewed as niche instruments: intellectually elegant, but economically constrained. Today, they are beginning to resemble something else entirely—continuous, high-participation event markets.
This article examines how three representative platforms—Kalshi, Polymarket, and Opinion—are driving this transition in very different ways, and what that divergence reveals about the future of prediction markets.
1. The Core Shift: From Low-Frequency Bets to High-Velocity Trading
Historically, prediction markets suffered from a structural ceiling: low capital velocity.
The classic user flow was simple:
· Enter a market
· Place a position
· Wait for resolution
· Exit
Capital was locked, engagement was episodic, and price discovery was slow.
What has changed is not merely the number of participants, but how participants interact with the same contract over time.
Today’s prediction markets increasingly exhibit:
1. Continuous repricing of events, not just binary outcomes
2. Repeated entry and exit within a single event lifecycle
3. Intra-event volatility that itself becomes a trading opportunity
In other words, prediction markets are shifting from outcome-based participation to process-based trading.
This change alone dramatically alters what “scale” means for the sector.
2. Kalshi: How Sports Turned Prediction Markets into High-Frequency Venues
Among major platforms, Kalshi’s transformation is the most structurally decisive.
Rather than positioning prediction markets purely as information tools, Kalshi has leaned into a more pragmatic reality: sports create frequency.
Sports Are Not Just a Category—They Are a Market Engine
Sports events provide three powerful advantages:
· Dense scheduling (daily, sometimes hourly events)
· Strong emotional engagement
· Rapid settlement cycles
This combination allows prediction contracts to function more like short-duration trading instruments than long-dated bets.
What Kalshi’s Growth Actually Represents
The key driver is not necessarily more unique users—it is higher capital turnover per user.
Funds are recycled quickly, positions are adjusted frequently, and participation becomes habitual.
This creates a consumption-driven trading profile:
· Highly scalable
· Strongly frequency-dependent
· Sensitive to user attention cycles
The strategic question for Kalshi is whether this momentum can persist beyond sports-led engagement.
3. Polymarket: Prediction Markets as a Tradable Layer of Public Opinion
If Kalshi’s liquidity comes from rhythm, Polymarket’s comes from narrative.
The Platform’s Real Asset: Topic Selection
Polymarket excels at rapidly listing markets tied to:
· Politics
· Macroeconomics
· Technology narratives
· Crypto-native discourse
These are not merely events—they are ongoing conversations.
As a result, trading activity often reflects:
· Shifting sentiment
· Reaction to news cycles
· Social media-driven momentum
Trading Views, Not Just Outcomes
Much of Polymarket’s activity is not about holding a position to resolution, but about:
· Repositioning
· Hedging evolving beliefs
· Expressing disagreement with consensus pricing
This makes Polymarket resemble a decentralized sentiment exchange.
The long-term challenge is structural:
When everyone is trading opinion, sustaining reliable probabilistic signals becomes increasingly difficult.
4. Opinion: The Growth-Stage Question—Can Activity Become Habit?
Compared with Kalshi and Polymarket, Opinion represents a different phase of market development.
Volume as a Growth Instrument
Opinion’s activity profile reflects a platform still refining its identity:
· Strong emphasis on user acquisition
· Experimentation with incentives and engagement loops
· Rapid scaling attempts
This can generate impressive short-term activity, but volume alone is not decisive.
What Will Matter Over Time
For Opinion, the key metrics are behavioral, not numerical:
· Do users return across unrelated events?
· Does trading persist without explicit incentives?
· Can organic order-book depth form outside peak moments?
Without durable participation patterns, activity risks remaining episodic.
5. From Volume Competition to Structural Competition
Taken together, recent market dynamics reveal something important:
Prediction markets are no longer converging on a single model.
Instead, we are seeing functional divergence:
· Kalshi is industrializing prediction markets through frequency and accessibility
· Polymarket is financializing collective belief and narrative volatility
· Opinion is testing scalable growth mechanics
This shifts the competitive landscape away from raw activity metrics and toward deeper questions:
1. Can liquidity persist outside peak events?
2. Do prices remain interpretable under heavy trading pressure?
3. Is participation driven by genuine demand or temporary stimulus?
Conclusion: The Question Is No Longer Whether Prediction Markets Matter
Prediction markets have moved beyond the stage of proving relevance.
What matters now is what kind of market they become.
Will they evolve into:
· Information-dense pricing mechanisms?
· High-frequency entertainment markets?
· Hybrid instruments blending belief, speculation, and hedging?
The recent surge in activity signals not a destination, but a transition.
The platforms that succeed will not be those that simply trade more—but those that align high participation with meaningful price discovery.
That balance will define the next era of prediction markets.

Introduction: Bitcoin’s problem was never a lack of value
Bitcoin’s biggest challenge has never been adoption, liquidity, or even technology.
It has always been participation.
Most BTC holders do not want to bridge, wrap, lend, or rehypothecate their coins. Not because yields are unattractive, but because relinquishing control violates the core Bitcoin ethos.
Babylon’s importance lies in a simple realization:
Bitcoin doesn’t need to become flexible. Systems need to adapt to Bitcoin.
What Babylon actually does
Rather than enabling Bitcoin DeFi in the conventional sense, Babylon reframes Bitcoin as a trust-minimized security asset for Proof-of-Stake systems.
Three design choices matter:
1.Bitcoin never leaves the base layer.
BTC remains locked on Bitcoin itself via time-locks and signature constraints. No bridges, no custodians.
2.Security
is derived from provable lockups, not asset transfer.
PoS chains rely on cryptographic proof that BTC is locked, rather than controlling the BTC itself.
3.The yield comes from security provision, not financial engineering.
Rewards are paid by chains that consume security, not by leverage or liquidity games.
Why this matters for Bitcoin
Bitcoin’s long-standing issue is activating capital that refuses to move.
Most prior solutions demanded trust first. Babylon reverses that logic by designing under the assumption of zero trust.
This does not unlock instant liquidity. Instead, it unlocks something more subtle:
habit formation.
When #BTC holders realize they can earn yield without giving up custody, new behavior slowly becomes acceptable.
For Bitcoin, slow change is often the only sustainable change.
Babylon as infrastructure, not an application
Viewed broadly, Babylon is not a product—it’s a security module.
PoS chains depend on the quality of their staked assets. When prices fall, security weakens, sometimes catastrophically.
Bitcoin, by contrast, is external, highly liquid, and globally trusted. Abstracted correctly, it can serve as a neutral security anchor for multiple systems.
Babylon’s real bet is that Bitcoin can become the shared security substrate of the broader crypto ecosystem.
Comparisons and scale
Babylon is often compared to EigenLayer, not because they are identical, but because both attempt to reuse top-tier crypto assets for system security.
The key difference is philosophical: Babylon assumes Bitcoin users will never accept custody risk—and designs accordingly.
Even a modest percentage of Bitcoin supply participating in security provisioning would represent a scale unmatched by most existing protocols.
Participation and expectations
Whether through early credentials, testnets, or eventual mainnet locking, participation in Babylon is ultimately a bet on one question:
Will Bitcoin evolve from passive store of value into active security provider—without compromising its principles?
This is a long-term thesis, not a short-term trade.
Closing thoughts
#Babylon does not try to make Bitcoin more flexible.
It makes systems more respectful of Bitcoin’s constraints.
If the first decade of Bitcoin was about storing value,
the next phase may be about exporting security—on Bitcoin’s terms.