# Centralization Related Articles

HTX News Center provides the latest articles and in-depth analysis on "Centralization", covering market trends, project updates, tech developments, and regulatory policies in the crypto industry.

Polymarket's "Hand of God": Frequent Prediction Disputes, the Black Box of Adjudication Power Under the "Centralization" Dilemma

A semantic dispute over whether the U.S. "invaded" Venezuela led to a multimillion-dollar betting outcome on Polymarket, where the "No" option was controversially settled despite real-world actions that many perceived as invasion. This incident highlights a recurring structural flaw in decentralized prediction markets: the challenge of defining "truth" for complex real-world events. Similar semantic ambiguities have repeatedly occurred on Polymarket, such as a high-stakes bet on whether Ukraine’s President Zelensky wore a suit at a specific event. While real-world evidence seemed clear, the outcome was swayed by decentralized oracle UMA’s governance mechanism, allowing token holders to vote on disputed results—sometimes enabling large players to manipulate outcomes. These cases reveal the limits of "code is law" in prediction markets. While blockchain excels at executing predefined rules trustlessly, it struggles with contextual, socially constructed events like political or military interpretations. The authority to define and settle reality ultimately remains centralized in the hands of rule-makers and arbitrators, even when execution is decentralized. Prediction markets work best for clearly defined, data-driven questions but face inherent challenges when applied to politicized or semantically ambiguous events. The core issue isn’t whether the market is decentralized, but who holds the power to define reality when consensus breaks down.

marsbit01/22 11:04

Polymarket's "Hand of God": Frequent Prediction Disputes, the Black Box of Adjudication Power Under the "Centralization" Dilemma

marsbit01/22 11:04

The Most Centralized Giant in the Crypto World Starts Selling the 'Decentralized AI' Dream

Tether, the highly centralized issuer of the USDT stablecoin, reported $13 billion in profit in 2024—far exceeding the combined revenues and losses of major AI firms like OpenAI and Anthropic. With only 150 employees, Tether earns primarily by investing user funds in U.S. Treasury bonds, profiting from the interest without paying users any yield. Now, Tether is aggressively investing in AI. It loaned over $600 million to Northern Data, Europe’s largest GPU cloud provider with over 10,000 Nvidia H100 GPUs. It also released QVAC Genesis, a massive open-source AI training dataset, and acquired Blackrock Neurotech, a brain-computer interface company, for $200 million. Total AI-related investments approach $1 billion, with potential additional deals in robotics sector. Despite its centralized control over USDT reserves and lack of external audits, Tether promotes a “decentralized AI” vision—advocating for local AI operation and individual data ownership. Critics find this ironic, given Tether’s opaque governance. Tether’s move into AI may stem from concerns over declining Treasury yields and a desire to position itself as a tech innovator. Unlike AI startups burning billions without clear profitability, Tether uses stablecoin profits to fund speculative AI bets—insulating itself from sector risks while gaining influence. The article suggests that in 2026, the best business model in AI might be not doing AI at all, but rather funding it with profits from a separate, lucrative venture.

比推01/05 14:50

The Most Centralized Giant in the Crypto World Starts Selling the 'Decentralized AI' Dream

比推01/05 14:50

Lighthouses Guide the Way, Torches Claim Sovereignty: A Hidden War Over AI Allocation Rights

The article "Lighthouse Guides Direction, Torch Fights for Sovereignty: A Hidden War Over AI Allocation" by Zhixiong Pan examines the underlying power struggle in AI development, moving beyond superficial metrics like model size and performance rankings. It identifies two coexisting paradigms: the "Lighthouse," representing state-of-the-art (SOTA), centralized AI systems controlled by tech giants like OpenAI and Google, which push cognitive boundaries but are resource-intensive and create dependency risks; and the "Torch," symbolizing open-source, locally deployable models (e.g., DeepSeek, Mistral) that democratize access, ensure data sovereignty, and enable private, customizable AI assets. The Lighthouse drives innovation and sets technical directions but poses risks in accessibility, control, and single-point failures. The Torch, while shifting security and responsibility to users, offers resilience, cost stability, and compliance for critical applications in sectors like healthcare and finance. The interplay between these models forms a symbiotic relationship: Lighthouses expand capabilities, while Torches disseminate and stabilize these advances, collectively elevating AI’s baseline. Ultimately, the conflict is over AI allocation rights—defining default intelligence, managing externalities, and determining individual control. A dual strategy—using Lighthouses for frontier tasks and Torches for private, reliable deployment—is proposed as the pragmatic path forward, balancing extreme capability with broad, sovereign access. The true measure of the AI era lies not in raw power but in whether individuals possess "a light they don’t have to borrow from anyone."

marsbit12/22 11:13

Lighthouses Guide the Way, Torches Claim Sovereignty: A Hidden War Over AI Allocation Rights

marsbit12/22 11:13

活动图片