> be jacob steeves - @const_reborn > math cs kid from simon fraser > software engineer at google > realizes AI is owned by a handful of companies > hates it > quits to build the opposite with $TAO > takes bitcoin's idea: pay people to do useful work > points it at intelligence itself > co-founds bittensor with ala shaabana > miners produce AI > validators grade it > $TAO pays whoever's best > no lab, no gatekeeper > just an open market for intelligence > everyone calls it a science project > "why would i use this over claude" > then one day the centralized one goes dark > "claude fable is no longer available" > no warning > no vote > no appeal > millions realize they were renting intelligence > and the landlord changed the locks > suddenly a model nobody can switch off doesn't sound crazy > suddenly bittensor makes sense jacob steeves built the answer years before anyone asked the question that's the day they finally get $TAO

I’ve had a number of conversations with folks inside and outside government about the current situation with Anthropic, and here is what I believe to be true: — As we know, Anthropic publicly released its Mythos class models earlier this week under the commercial name Fable. — Fable is Mythos with guardrails. But if those guardrails fail, then you’ve exposed Mythos and its advanced cyber capabilities to people who shouldn’t have them. (Keep in mind that Anthropic itself widely promoted the idea that Mythos was a cyberweapon and needed to be regulated as such. They asked for government regulation of Mythos and championed the guardrails on Fable. If there is a vulnerability — big or small — it is Anthropic’s responsibility to patch.) — A highly credible trusted partner of both Anthropic and the USG who was testing Fable came forward with a jailbreak of those guardrails. The Admin asked Dario to fix the jailbreak or de-deploy the model. Dario refused. — In their blog post, Anthropic defended its decision by saying the jailbreak isn’t serious. That is not what the trusted partner and the USG believe; nor is that kind of minimizing language consistent with Anthropic’s brand as the AI safety company. It’s difficult to fathom how they could claim a jailbreak allowing operability of a cyber weapon could be defined as not “serious.” — In the past, Anthropic has always said that safety must be top priority and taken super seriously. In this case, Anthropic prioritized the continued offering of the consumer model over safety. — In reaction, the Admin issued the export control. The Admin did this reluctantly. It’s been very surprised that Anthropic hasn’t wanted to cooperate with a reasonable safety request (ie fixing the jailbreak issue). Anthropic’s reaction is very much at odds with their branding and ethos as a safe AI research community. — The Admin’s hope now is that Anthropic remediates the safety issue, the export control is lifted, and Fable goes back into general release. The Admin wants all of this to happen as soon as possible. It is frankly bewildered that Anthropic hasn’t wanted to comply with safety requests that it previously said were its highest priority. — Those trying to misdirect and tie this action to the prior DoW/Anthropic issues are wrong. The Admin values Anthropic’s technical capabilities and feels that this issue, while serious, should be easily resolved. The ball is in Anthropic’s court.

Access to intelligence should not depend on a handful of companies or governments. This is why open, decentralized, permissionless AI matters. This is why Bittensor matters.

Claims will be SN 111. We're super excited to join the network! Thank you to everyone who supported and believed in us so far. Now we'll roll up the sleeves and start making it happen. 🔥

Mama a partner at PwC is talking about me. Stop lying No look;

LinkedIn for ZEUS is getting results. We shared our benchmarks and here are the conversion rates; • 22,859 Impressions generated 512 Profile Views (2.2%). • 36 Clicks to our website (7%). • 6 Calls Booked (16.6%). • 1 Pilot spinning up right after the first call (100%)

Le Club était déjà prêt au scenario !! Pas surpris par le mouv ! J'attendais un UP puis le dump vu le 28 Mars 2026 dans le club privé sur Discord et 3 mois plus tard scenario obtenu ainsi que la cassure du bas $BTC #theprivateclubcryptobaguette Tu veux apprendre aussi ? Go t'inscrire theprivateclubcryptobaguette…

Bittensor: you came, you saw, you crowdfunded @DeSciClaims - and launched a subnet, live in the Louvre. Thank you to @proofoftalk for letting us take centre stage and prove our community's power. Claims: complete. Provenonce: imminent. @ExploitSummit: we're coming for you.

Let me reply to that question. My answer is that, mentally, the market is still tied to BTC. Part of that is tradition, and part of it is the sense of security BTC provides. Because of that, decoupling isn’t just a price issue; it’s a trust issue. $TAO may be one of the few projects following a clear and structured path that could eventually lead to a permanent decoupling. People rotate into BTC because they view it as the safest asset in crypto. TAO is slowly moving toward becoming a legitimate alternative for that role. Now, my adorable 🥰 friend and hero, Let me spam your messages with something I replied to another person about the price of TAO! 🚀 here I truly believe @markjeffrey is right, and that $TAO gets above $2,000 sooner rather than later. You also have to account for the halving that happened six months ago. A huge amount of TAO is staked, and a massive amount is locked inside subnets. Because of that, I believe $TAO is still significantly undervalued and not even close to fair value yet. If you understand market caps, TAO is actually cheaper than SOL, HYPE, XRP, and NEAR. Why? Because price alone doesn’t determine value; market cap does. Any project above a $4B market cap is already more expensive than TAO. Today, TAO isn’t even at a $3B market cap. On top of that, TAO has a limited supply. Like BTC, only 21 million TAO will ever exist. I don’t see another asymmetric bet with this level of sustainability. And I specifically say sustainability because TAO sits at the center of AI 🤖, and even more importantly, decentralized AI; which is rapidly becoming one of the most important trends in the industry. $TAO isn’t great because it’s trying to be better than everyone else. It’s great because its entire design works in its favor: decentralization, scarcity, low market cap, a strong community, a functioning ecosystem, investor rewards, real science, and continuous innovation. When Mark said TAO could become the #3 crypto, I honestly think he was being respectful to BTC and ETH. The reward mechanism inside Bittensor allows investors to generate more TAO without buying more TAO, simply by allocating capital intelligently across the subnet economy. Very few ecosystems offer anything remotely similar. Today, the ecosystem itself has become a marketplace where investors can earn more TAO by participating in subnet growth and trading subnet assets. For anyone reading this: copy and paste this entire post into ChatGPT, Gemini, or Grok and ask them if this analysis makes sense. Do your own research. My bet is that after you do, you’ll start buying $TAO.