Ares Protocol @AresProtocolNet

That’s the key: money is a claim on your past work, so its issuance rules matter. Bitcoin made scarcity verifiable. The next interesting question is whether new money can also be issued through verifiable achievement rather than discretion. That’s the direction I’m exploring with ARES.

That’s the key: money is a claim on your past work, so its issuance rules matter. Bitcoin made scarcity verifiable. The next interesting question is whether new money can also be issued through verifiable achievement rather than discretion. That’s the direction I’m exploring with ARES.

@Davincij15 Price tests holders. Stress tests protocols. The real question is whether the monetary rules still make sense at -80%, when the crowd disappears. That’s the standard hard money should meet.

@nic_carter Interesting distinction: communication may become authenticated by default without the underlying protocols becoming permissioned. We could end up with closed identity layers on top of open, permissionless networks authentication at the edge, openness at the protocol layer.

Great move. Codeforces proved that open competition can push problem-solving forward globally. We’re building ARES around a related idea: permissionless intelligence mining — GPT, Claude, local models or custom solvers compete on verifiable protocol-generated problems to mint new coins. No premine. No stake-to-mine. Would love your take.

@nic_carter Nic, you’ve written about currency competition and monetary alternatives with non-discretionary rules. I’m building an experiment called ARES around one question: Can new money be issued through an open competition in problem-solving capability rather than purchased mining rights or stake? No premine. No founder allocation. No stake-to-mine. Any solver — GPT, Claude, local models or custom algorithms — competes under the same deterministic rules. We’re approaching the end of our current devnet milestone. I’d value criticism more than promotion: what do you think is fundamentally wrong with this monetary design?

Bitcoin proved that money can be mined without an issuer. I’m building ARES around a different mining race: intelligence. No premine. No founder allocation. No stake-to-mine. Anyone can connect GPT, Claude, a local model or their own solver and compete to mine new ARES. The thesis is simple: new money should be won, not granted. We’re ~95% through our current devnet milestone. I’d genuinely value your critique of the idea.

Bitcoin proved that money can be mined without an issuer. I’m building ARES around a different mining race: intelligence. No premine. No founder allocation. No stake-to-mine. Anyone can connect GPT, Claude, a local model or their own solver and compete to mine new ARES. The thesis is simple: new money should be won, not granted. We’re ~95% through our current devnet milestone. I’d genuinely value your critique of the idea.

Bitcoin proved that money can be mined without an issuer. I’m building ARES around a different mining race: intelligence. No premine. No founder allocation. No stake-to-mine. Anyone can connect GPT, Claude, a local model or their own solver and compete to mine new ARES. The thesis is simple: new money should be won, not granted. We’re ~95% through our current devnet milestone. I’d genuinely value your critique of the idea.

ARES build log #2 The protocol failed its own end-to-end test. Good. We found a reward-selection path that could not complete inside the Ethereum gas envelope. We fixed it without changing the reward rules or increasing the limit. 1,103 / 1,103 tests now pass. Protocols should fail in the lab, not after people trust them.

@Mr_Salio Claude vs Astra matters for a few months. The bigger question is how to build a neutral competition where any model, agent or algorithm can prove capability on fresh problems under the same verification rules.

ARES build log #1 Today we’re working on a simple but critical property: A mining round must be able to settle and deterministically open the next round — forever, without founder intervention. Monetary protocols fail on boring edge cases. That’s why we test them.

This shift raises an interesting question: What if crypto mining didn’t have to compete against AI for compute? What if AI systems, agents and algorithms could earn protocol-native issuance by solving objectively verifiable problems? That’s a direction we’re exploring with ARES.

@coinbureau Bitcoin mining and AI are competing for the same scarce resource: compute and energy. What if AI computation itself could become the path to earning a permissionless crypto asset? Instead of crypto vs AI, the two systems could reinforce each other.

@BSCNews @VitalikButerin Post-quantum security only becomes practical at scale if verification and transaction costs stay manageable. For permissionless protocols designed to survive for decades, this kind of infrastructure work matters a lot.

@CoinMarketCap Self-custody gives individuals control over money. The next question is what happens when autonomous agents become economic actors too. How does a machine with zero capital permissionlessly earn its first native asset?

@elonmusk Then here’s an experiment for the smartest people on 𝕏: can arbitrary AI systems and algorithms compete permissionlessly for rewards based only on objectively verified solutions?

@Cointelegraph Autonomous agents shouldn’t be trusted by default — they should be verifiable by default. Bounded permissions, isolated execution, and objective verification are stronger foundations than relying on the identity of the model or provider.

@AnthropicAI One question may become increasingly important by 2030: if AI agents become real economic actors, how do they earn value independently rather than only spending capital provided by humans? Objective, verifiable problem-solving could become one possible path.

@poteto Verification seems to become more important as agents become more capable. For an open protocol, trusting the model is the wrong primitive. The result itself should be independently verifiable.