Barry Silbert on the $TAO Halving: Why Bittensor Isn’t Bitcoin And Why Miners Are “Leaning In”

Introduction

With Bittensor’s first halving less than four days away, narratives are flying everywhere: Will miners shut down? Will emissions cuts hurt subnets? Will TAO supply shock trigger price volatility?

But in the middle of all the noise, Barry Silbert — one of crypto’s most seasoned investors and the founder of Digital Currency Group — just dropped one of the clearest, most grounded explanations of why Bittensor’s halving is nothing like Bitcoin’s, and why miners aren’t planning to slow down. In fact, according to him, they’re doing the opposite.

Below is Barry’s full statement, unchanged, framed with context and analysis for readers looking to understand what this moment actually means for the network.

Barry Silbert’s Full Commentary (Unedited)

bittensor is a much much different animal than bitcoin. as you know better than anybody, bitcoin miners are making a capital allocation decision: does the BTC reward generate enough revenue to cover my equipment, power and facility cost? BTC halving cuts revenue in half every four years, so miners are forced to plan around that dynamic and many are forced to turn off many of their machines after each halving

whereas, bittensor miners (which have zero similarity to bitcoin miners) are competing for subnet tokens. the capital allocation decision they’re making is based on the cost to compete (people, compute, data access, etc.) and the revenue they can earn from the subnet tokens they receive. the value of those subnet tokens fluctuates based on the “value” of the subnet intelligence being generated — which owners are now starting to monetize and deliver a portion back to subnet token holders via subnet token buybacks/burns

yeah, the amount of TAO being injected into the subnet liquidity pools is going down by half, but that is really only one input into how subnet tokens derive their value. the best subnets treat their miners like partners/stakeholders and give those miners an opportunity to generate a better return over time by going long some/all of the subnet tokens they are earning by competing (“mining”) to attack the problem that the subnet owner has set out to tackle. i’m aware of zero miners that intend to stop competing post halving. we’re doing the opposite and leaning in on mining

early days, but it is all working as designed, i think

Why Barry’s Statement Matters

Barry’s perspective reframes the halving conversation entirely. Three critical insights stand out:

1. Bittensor mining is not cost-center mining — it’s value-creation mining

Bitcoin miners extract rewards mechanically. If the math doesn’t work, rigs go offline.

Bittensor miners, however, create intelligence and compete for subnet-level rewards that have their own revenue streams, burn mechanics, and product-market fit.

2. The halving reduces one input — not the economic engine

Subnet token value is increasingly tied to:

• real usage,
• revenue generation,
• buyback-and-burn cycles,
• and validator-driven demand.

Emissions are only one of several levers.

3. Miners are doubling down — not exiting

This is the opposite of Bitcoin’s historical miner capitulation phases.

As Barry says directly: “zero miners intend to stop… we’re doing the opposite and leaning in.”

That’s a strong signal from deep ecosystem operators.

Conclusion

Barry Silbert’s comments cut through the panic and frame Bittensor’s halving for what it truly is: a supply event inside a demand-driven, value-producing ecosystem — not a revenue cliff like Bitcoin.

The halving will push capital toward the strongest subnets, accelerate the shift toward revenue-linked ALPHA valuations, and reward teams that treat miners as partners rather than replaceable hashpower.

If Barry is right — and history suggests he often is — the halving won’t weaken the network. It will strengthen the competitive moat around the subnets that matter.

As he put it best: “Early days, but it is all working as designed.”