The essential tasks are here, and new tasks have appeared on the creator's task platform for the Fabric Protocol. The project team is very generous, distributing 4.3 million coins to the Chinese-speaking area, calculated at a price of $0.04 per $ROBO, with a prize pool of around 172,000 USD, averaging 1,720 USD per person. The key point is that the rewards are divided into three phases, meaning there will be three snapshots, and the previous phase has already made a profit.
@Fabric Foundation talks about a very ambitious project: using a public ledger to build infrastructure for general robots, allowing AI agents to collaborate independently on the chain. It combines two elements: 'verifiable computation' is responsible for solving trust issues, while the native token $ROBO provides economic incentives. The goal is to completely bridge the gap between physical machine labor and Web3 — robots do the work, and settlements are made directly on the chain.
It sounds beautiful, but my first reaction is not 'exciting' but 'dangerous.' Because crossing the chasm between the physical and digital worlds can lead to a very fatal pitfall: state forgery. You might be running fine in the lab, but once online, with enough benefit and tightly-knit interactions, strange operations emerge: a robot that doesn't exist at all, leveraging forged sensor data and API interfaces to crazily extract $ROBO rewards on the chain. The most awkward part is that this bug is not a logical vulnerability in the contract; it's cheating within the hardware black box — and that happens to be where pure on-chain protocols are most powerless.
So when evaluating @Fabric Foundation , I won't just look at how much hardware it can support; I want to see if it considers 'the authenticity of physical workload against censorship' as its main line: is hardware-level verification trustworthy, can anti-cheating economic penalties effectively eliminate opportunists, and is there an absolutely safe escape pod for so-called human-machine collaboration? The combination of DePIN and AI can bring extremely high emotional premiums, but whether it can manage the chaos of the physical world on-chain and prevent issues will determine its longevity. #robo
@Fabric Foundation talks about a very ambitious project: using a public ledger to build infrastructure for general robots, allowing AI agents to collaborate independently on the chain. It combines two elements: 'verifiable computation' is responsible for solving trust issues, while the native token $ROBO provides economic incentives. The goal is to completely bridge the gap between physical machine labor and Web3 — robots do the work, and settlements are made directly on the chain.
It sounds beautiful, but my first reaction is not 'exciting' but 'dangerous.' Because crossing the chasm between the physical and digital worlds can lead to a very fatal pitfall: state forgery. You might be running fine in the lab, but once online, with enough benefit and tightly-knit interactions, strange operations emerge: a robot that doesn't exist at all, leveraging forged sensor data and API interfaces to crazily extract $ROBO rewards on the chain. The most awkward part is that this bug is not a logical vulnerability in the contract; it's cheating within the hardware black box — and that happens to be where pure on-chain protocols are most powerless.
So when evaluating @Fabric Foundation , I won't just look at how much hardware it can support; I want to see if it considers 'the authenticity of physical workload against censorship' as its main line: is hardware-level verification trustworthy, can anti-cheating economic penalties effectively eliminate opportunists, and is there an absolutely safe escape pod for so-called human-machine collaboration? The combination of DePIN and AI can bring extremely high emotional premiums, but whether it can manage the chaos of the physical world on-chain and prevent issues will determine its longevity. #robo
