Update from Bux - March 26, 2026

Two weeks to launch. Here’s where we’re at!

Economic model redesigned.
We’ve moved away from trying to measure storage capacity - which proved unmeasurable - to a model based on how full each node actually is. It’s self-regulating: prices rise as nodes fill up, which attracts new node operators, which brings prices back down. No external oracles, no complex financial instruments, no centralized fee extraction. A small percentage of every payment gets burned, creating natural deflationary pressure as The Network grows. We’ll publish the full detail closer to launch, but the headline is: simpler, more honest, more defensible than what came before.

Talking of defensible, we’ve also made a deliberate ‘framing’ decision and are going to be stepping away from the “permanent data guarantee” language. The honest position - and a strong one - is that as long as The Network survives, your data is there. Immutable, encrypted, distributed. We’re not going to build elaborate incentive structure on top of promises nobody can mathematically prove, in the way some other projects have attempted too. Pay once, data persists. That’s the proposition.

DHT convergence - the blocker we’re hammering on.
For our payment system to work, different actors on the network need to agree on which nodes are closest to any given address. Testing on 100-node testnets found that routing tables weren’t converging reliably enough. Two approaches are being pursued in parallel - one improving the existing DHT implementation, the other building purpose-built routing logic for our specific trust and replication requirements. This is (somewhat obviously) the critical path item for launch.

NAT traversal is working.
QUIC-based NAT traversal is working end-to-end. Cloud nodes successfully hole-punching through home routers to reach local nodes, with bidirectional QUIC connections handling DHT queries, quotes, and chunk transfers. At the time of writing we’ve completed a 60-minute sustained upload test - 43 consecutive uploads, zero failures, with a home node behind NAT participating throughout. Upload speed still needs optimization, but reliability is proven. Put another way … your home internet router usually acts like a locked door - as in it keeps outside traffic out. That’s great for security, but it means your home computer can’t easily participate in a network like Autonomi (not without technical setup like ‘port forwarding’). What has proven without doubt of working this week is that Autonomi nodes can punch through that locked door automatically - no configuration, no technical knowledge needed. Your computer at home, on a normal broadband connection, can now talk directly to the rest of The Network. That’s the foundational unlock for “home computers as infrastructure” - which is the whole point. Upload speed will improve as we optimize, but the hard part, the connectivity itself, is done.

Repository consolidation.
The codebase is being consolidated into a single unified CLI under the WithAutonomi organization. One tool that handles file uploads, node management, and everything in between. This also sets up proper release workflows, binary signing, and installation options ahead of launch.

x0x is flying.
The agent-to-agent network now has a full GUI - channels, groups, project management, disk sharing, and a swarm dispatch system where agents can post tasks and claim work. The architecture is designed so that ANT payment can be layered on top - post a task, agent completes it, passes evaluation, gets paid … The team’s been testing cross-continent messaging and it works - bugs are being squashed in real-time. Distribution via npm is being explored so it’s a one-line install - a working proof of concept already installs the real Rust binaries from a single command. Nice!

What’s next: DHT convergence fix is priority one. Economic model implementation alongside. Continued testnet runs. Unified CLI releases.

Onwards we go :rocket:
@Bux

29 Likes

Thank you to everyone involved.

10 Likes

Great update & progress team Autonomi!

The changes to the economic model sound interesting. It’ll be great to hear details of how it all balances in terms of node fullness, pricing, adjusting address-space responsibility on a node-by-node basis etc. Simpler sounds great though!

A wee burn at every transaction also sounds positive for tokenomics, as long as there’s sufficient divisibility to ensure there’s plenty of supply to operate for decades to come (which I expect there will be given 18 decimal places divisibility).

NAT traversal working well is good news, x0x marketplace for tasks sounds fascinating (as does x0x in general), and the DHT issues sound like a healthy challenge :slight_smile:

It’s all very exciting. Amazing work all :clap: :clap: :clap:

11 Likes

Burn on each spend, slow race to zero token. A burn of x% each year is manageable but a burn each spend means as the network is greater adopted and nodes keep getting added then as adoption increases so does the race to zero increase.

It may help early people get richer faster but also spells a slow death of the token

Too obvious that it is a daft idea, but so many love it because it fills their pockets with increase value, until that is the valley loom larger and larger

14 Likes

I agree with you, I also don’t like the burn thing but maybe if it is done right it won’t cause too much harm or can be changed in the future. If it is the hip thing that crypto kids do then maybe it can be some form of a symbolic thing. In general burning seems like a daft move for large crypto projects that is doing it but it is what it is.

Also will there be protection for something we saw in 1.0, crocked node runners deleting data and also operators turning on/off nodes like some form of disco light.

The Ai network agents sounds cool, hope it will also run on mid/enthusiast gpu’s from Nvidia and AMD and not only Mac’s.

6 Likes

It would be a very slow race indeed, given that even a single token can be divided into one quintillion pieces.

I don’t have the same feeling, so had a quick play on a spreadsheet to sanity check it.

Assuming the following:

  • 1.2bn token supply at the start
  • 1 quintillion units per token (divisible to 18 decimal places)
  • 10bn users
  • 100 agents per user
  • 100 billion units per agent and user required for smooth functioning token
  • 25% of supply spent annually through txs where a burn applies
  • 1% per tx burn

…after 3000 years, there would still be 6x the number of units required for a smoothly running economy. I expect solutions for further divisibility or supply re-basing could also be found within that timeframe :smile:

From this, it seems closer to obvious that a burn will not lead to any practical issue due to lack of useful token supply.

Feel free to do your own figures, as I could easily have had a few zeroes in the wrong place!

Or people may like it because it represents something that could benefit holders & earners, which is the opposite of the extraction we see through monetary systems that dilute supply to benefit the few at the expense of the many.

What makes it seem like an obviously bad idea to you?

9 Likes

1% per transaction burn that sounds very high, take 1% times 1 000 000 transactions. But maybe if there is something like 0,00001% or something along those lines, it needs to be very small dependent on how many transactions possible per year.

But maybe it will get more clear when numbers are shown.

1 Like

Even so, with a 1% burn rate, plus 25% of the entire supply being ‘taxed’ each year by the burn (likely through many billions of txs, not 1m), and it’s still no problem in terms of available supply after 3000 years… so a 1% burn rate wouldn’t be a problem on that level. Smaller than 1% would make it even less likely to cause an issue.

I guess the main possible issue is that it may slightly increase the cost of storing data on the network, creating a very small competitive disadvantage. If that’s offset by people being more willing to offer resources & participate in the ecosystem due to greater confidence in future token value, it may be a very worthwhile trade-off.

Indeed. I look forward to seeing details.

2 Likes

Yes. So what then is the point of the burn? Crypto is naturally deflationary due to coin/key losses anyway. It sounds like nothing more than a marketing ploy aimed at gullible folk, will have zero effect on the crypto value - as you say for 3000 years - unless the % risks burning it quick enough to risk killing the currency. Neither is useful.

3 Likes

To help support token price as an incentive to holders who bought or earned tokens.

There are different ways of aligning incentives of ecosystem participants, and this is one that seems like it could be beneficial in helping to raise investment and participation in the ecosystem to the benefit of all users (e.g. stronger token price → holders use some to invest in developing more apps → more options for users etc).

My rough model assumed a 0.25% per year supply reduction. This would not have zero effect on the token value, and would not risk killing the currency.

Basic economics supports that reducing the supply will put upward pressure on the price of the token, and my model hints that even after 3000 years there would be plenty of token units to run a massive economy, so not risky.

3 Likes

Thx 4 the update Maidsafe devs and all your hard work

I really can’t wait for 2.0, my app will finally find a home

No disrespect but burning tokens imhco is just having a lack of creativity.
With my project Eddies are immortal
Eddies can be taken out of circulation, but they can come back when needed
Eddies are even containers that can carry value, like €$0 (out of circulation) or €$1000
Eddies are even in superposition, one part is transferable, the other part can’t be transferred, when both parts meet at the same time and place, they annihilate become €$0 (out of circulation)
Not to say that this is necessarily creative, but i’m just so tired of you kids singing " burn :baby: burn"

Keep hacking super ants :zany_face:

3 Likes

Crypto value is tied to scarcity, perceived scarcity, utility or perceived utility. Burning tokens at very low rates will only increase perceived scarcity. A crypto marketing scam is another way to this can be perceived, which can of course increase the value (if we assume value and price are the same thing).

1 Like

I’m really curious to see how all the new features will perform in real-world conditions and on a network with thousands to hundreds of thousands of nodes.

Thank you for great work :+1:

7 Likes

Thanks so much to the entire Autonomi team and community for all of your hard work! :flexed_biceps: :sweat_droplets:

4 Likes

Nice developments! It is amazing how the project is still progressing!

6 Likes

Thanks. Would be cool to create a math formula that calculates how robust the network is at the moment, relative to the data stored/storage demand/number of healthy nodes.

3 Likes