BeLiEvEr313

Tôi không bắt đầu nghĩ về AI vì những gì nó có thể làm. Tôi bắt đầu nghĩ về nó vì những gì nó không thể làm.
Vài tháng trước, tôi thấy mình đang theo dõi một hệ thống tự động thực hiện một tác vụ mà nếu do con người làm thì sẽ mất vài phút. Dữ liệu được thu thập, các điều kiện được kiểm tra và một hành động được chuẩn bị gần như ngay lập tức. Mọi thứ hoạt động đúng như dự định. Thế nhưng điều đọng lại trong tôi sau đó không phải là tốc độ. Mà là sự vắng mặt của sự do dự. Ở bất kỳ thời điểm nào, hệ thống cũng không dừng lại để tự hỏi liệu nó có nên tiếp tục hay không. Nó chỉ đơn giản là đi theo con đường có sẵn cho nó. Càng nghĩ về khoảnh khắc đó, tôi càng nhận ra rằng việc ra quyết định của con người từ trước đến nay luôn chứa đựng điều gì đó mà máy móc không được tạo ra một cách tự nhiên để có khả năng tạm dừng trước khi hành động.

Tôi vẫn nhớ cảm giác hứng khởi ngày đó.
APR khổng lồ.
Cộng đồng náo nhiệt cực lớn.
Ai cũng đăng ảnh chụp màn hình phần thưởng.
Tôi lao vào sớm.
Tôi đã thấy số dư của mình tăng lên.
Sau đó lượng phát hành chậm lại.
Phần thưởng biến mất.
Thanh khoản cạn dần.
Cộng đồng đã chuyển hướng.
Đồng token không bao giờ phục hồi.
Tôi không chỉ mất tiền.
Tôi đã mất hàng tháng tin rằng chỉ cần các ưu đãi thôi là đủ để tạo nên một hệ sinh thái bền vững.
🔍 Đó là lý do Newton Protocol khiến tôi chú ý vì một lý do khác.
Nhìn thoáng qua thì rất dễ nghĩ Newton chỉ là một dự án hạ tầng khác.

Trước đây tôi nghĩ rằng thách thức lớn nhất đối với AI trong tài chính là làm cho nó thông minh hơn. Mỗi tháng lại dường như có thêm một mô hình khác có thể phân tích thị trường nhanh hơn, tóm tắt dữ liệu tốt hơn, hoặc tự động hóa thêm một tác vụ nào đó. Cảm giác như ngành công nghiệp đang chạy đua hướng tới trí tuệ. Rồi tôi dừng lại và tự hỏi một điều còn đơn giản hơn nhiều. Nếu một AI có thể di chuyển tài sản, ký giao dịch hoặc quản lý danh mục đầu tư, thì ai là người quyết định ranh giới quyền hạn của nó kết thúc ở đâu?
Câu hỏi đó đã thay đổi cách tôi nhìn nhận các dự án AI trong lĩnh vực crypto.
Trong vài năm qua, phần lớn các cuộc thảo luận xoay quanh tốc độ và tự động hóa. Các nhà đầu tư muốn biết blockchain nào nhanh hơn, mô hình AI nào có năng lực hơn, hoặc giao thức nào xử lý được nhiều giao dịch hơn. Những câu hỏi đó đều có cơ sở, nhưng tất cả đều dựa trên cùng một giả định. Chúng cho rằng nếu công nghệ đủ mạnh, thì niềm tin sẽ tự nhiên theo sau.

I’m often led down a simple path of inquiry when considering blockchain infrastructure initiatives. Is having a solid tech foundation sufficient to ensure future success? Or does the winning formula in the end come down to the community that’s formed around the project?
Thinking on this matter, I became curious and started investigating Newton Protocol’s ecosystem and governance model in detail. Most folks focus on the underlying technical aspects, security measures, and how transactions are processed. However, infrastructure projects usually triumph through rewards, getting others to join, and good governance rather than just superior technology.
I have a straightforward way to review these networks. The initial part is about the underlying technology. The part after that is the layer of economic incentives. The topmost layer is about governance. Numerous projects make a great piece of technology yet face difficulties in designing a lasting incentive mechanism and a well-working governance system. According to me that’s exactly what Newton Protocol sets out to do from day one in all these三个方面.
We are really looking forward towards the Operator model here for example. Operators will be rewarded according not how often they appear to have participated but what actual work they perform at policy evaluations. Therefore, the rewards will also take into account such factors as computational activity, data requests and network resources used during execution
Hence it is a fair system, for example, in which applications have to pay for real usage while the operators get paid for measurable contributions.
In my opinion, this kind of a system is realistic as it is quite typical for contemporary cloud computing services.
Instead of charging for the unused portion of your capacity your bill is determined by consuming the amount of your actual usage This method has typically been good for aligning the interests of the supplier and the consumer and at the same time improving the resource usage efficiency overall .
Blockchain applications in 2026 are getting more complex and sophisticated, it goes without saying, and this model has already been in practice and adopted at different levels. Compliance, identity, screening for sanctions, risk analysis, etc., all these activities demand an infrastructure that is capable of scaling the work. It is probably a better idea to have usage-based prices instead of relying on allocated allocations when it comes to fixed.
Policy system under Newton Protocol is yet another subject worthy of study. The traditional compliance framework is generally the result of individual organizations developing it ​‍​‌‍​‍‌independently.
Newton​‍​‌‍​‍‌ is different because it helps in building reusable policy modules that developers can publish share and use in their applications. Instead of creating a whole new set of rules every time they can take advantage of policy components already in existence. The changes necessary can be implemented through configuration as per their needs.
We could liken it to open source software development where today's big applications are hardly developed from scratch. In fact, the trend has become for the developers to use frameworks, libraries and tools already tested and well improved by the community because it allows them to focus more on the actual task at hand.
Newton's policy modules concept can be applied to policy infrastructure as well. If an application, for instance, needs to do sanctions checking, identity verification, transaction velocity controls, and checking source of funds - it can easily be done with existing policy modules. This way application development can take a back seat to the core business which is more focused on the user needs.
Still I feel that the idea of composability, which is what policy modules are based on, has its downside. Composability is indeed a powerful tool as it allows recombination of the modules but it is not a magic bullet.
If you rely too much on reusable components you have to make sure they are of consistently high quality because otherwise, your system could easily degenerate into a heap of badly working components. The problem is that the quality will drop in parallel with participation of more users. And in such case, maintaining trust in the components will be a challenge.
On top of this, another crucial area comes into play: data providers. Almost every day, financial systems are dependent to a great extent on external inputs. For instance, there is identity verification, sanctions databases, fraud detection tools, market price data, and consumer credit reports among others. Most of these inputs are outside blockchain networks.
With sandbox execution environments and verification mechanisms that aim to secure and make things reliable, Newton can handle a variety of data provider types. So, it's going to enable users to fetch external information and, at that same time, reduce the level of risks associated with integrating thirdparty products.
I see this as an area which will probably become very big. As the digital assets continue to evolve and converge with traditional financial markets, I guess that the requirement of trusted external data will keep on increasing. A secure system for integrating such data could become a very competitive feature.
The biggest factor that I find fascinating is Governance however.
Policymaking is often not seen as the same exciting as technological advancement but historical experience suggests that it frequently plays a key role in the sustained development of a digital network.
One of the features I find fascinating of the Protocol is that they break down Governance into such areas as policy standards, regulations for operator participation, and protocol upgrades. I see their plan as an effort to ensure that high quality standards are maintained while still keeping the system transparent and decentralized.
The difference made by the contrast is very clear. One group of block-chaineries is pushing for the speed of their decisions. On the other hand a few blockchain projects have been going almost 100% decentralisation only. For some reason Newton seems to pursue the path of keeping its system partly closed with some level of control and at the same time being somewhat open to the public.
It is just a matter of time before they can see the actual results of that kind of balancing.
I think that as infrastructure evolves further, governance will grow in importance. A certain level of technology can get attention from the media but it is governance that determines whether the community remains active and the network keeps getting developed.
And in this aspect, I see two sides of the coin - the possibility to win and the probability to fail. The way Newton Protocol is designed to invite a variety of participants - operators, developers, policy creators and data providers - shows the ambition of the ecosystem. The governance plan of Newton is to bring the participants on the same wavelength without letting the control in any single spot become too centralised.
Success with the plan will lead a solid basis to a successful long-term development. Failure will see complex being turned against complexity ​‍​‌‍​‍‌itself.
What​‍​‌‍​‍‌ could convince me to switch my mind?
I think a strong positive signal would include operators, developers, policy creators, and data providers joining in the network at a large size. Transparent governing decisions that keep the users' confidence and trust towards the whole ecosystem. On the other hand, a negative signal from the project would be a decrease in involvement, break-up of the ecosystem, governance quarrels that lower user's trust towards the network.
Newton Protocol is a fascinating attempt at creating infrastructure that relies on incentives, and participation and governance rather than technology alone that one can scale through them. Unless something changes, Newton Protocol's environment and form of governance remain a pretty decent experiment with such ​‍​‌‍​‍‌ideas.
@NewtonProtocol
$NEWT
$EVAA

$CLO

#BinanceTurns9 #MJR786 #NewtonProtocol#JapanBondYieldHits30YearHigh #BitcoinFailsToHold$64.4K #Newt