THE DAILY BRIEFING

Bittensor Daily — October 31, 2026

With no protocol release and #Announcements silent, the day's substance again ran mostly through #Rao, where the subnet-82 emissions argument that has simmered for days drew a rare partial concession alongside continued calls for clearer rules, and a member's question about Release 487's quantum-resistant wallets got only a guess rather than an official date. #General spent its energy on a member's funds stuck in a third-party bridge, with impersonators moving in within the hour. On the subnet side, SN92 (REAX) closed out its last competition round before pausing both tracks as planned, and SN124 (Swarm) reported evaluation throughput climbing after yesterday's backlog.

In #Rao, the recurring dispute over subnet 82's manually switched emissions reignites, with one defender conceding the specific case looked like a mistake and calling for clearer rules.
Its so unfair that some are allow to, and the others aren't base on some weird politics opened the exchange, and even a member who argued other chains fund projects just as arbitrarily conceded 82 should have nevwr had emussions enabled, i agree with that, i think its mistake that will be solved soon, adding Also i agree that criteria should be more transpatent sooner rather than later. Thats something that can be solved. A third member summed up manual control over emissions as necessary evil atm though. (1) This is the same structural question the channel has circled before this week: whether a manually switchable emissions mechanism can ever be read as even-handed. (2) The concession from a member otherwise defending the setup narrows the gap between the two sides more than the opening exchange suggested. (3) No official or team voice entered the thread, leaving both the complaint and the call for transparent criteria unaddressed by anyone with authority over the policy.
In #General, a member's TAO stuck in the third-party bridge taobridge.xyz draws impersonator friend requests within the hour, with the channel unable to do more than point to the vendor's own support.
does anyone know how to get a hold of taobridge.xyz support? have a large amount of tao stuck in the bridge & am getting no response on the ticket i opened in the discord was met with the channel's standing warning that Anyone DMing or calling you right now is a scammer, even if they look like me, another mod, admin, Opentensor Foundation team member, etc (they are imposters), and the member later confirmed thanks! yes i figured, already got the friend requests coming in ... but will ignore all that. (1) This is a new named third-party builder surfacing in the channel's recurring scam-adjacent friction pattern. (2) The channel has no tools of its own beyond redirecting to the vendor's support and repeating the anti-scam reminder, leaving the member's actual question about fund recoverability unanswered. (3) The ticket remained unanswered through the day, and the question of whether a failed transfer is recoverable was never resolved in the channel.
In #Rao, a member asks when Release 487's quantum-resistant wallets go live, and gets only an informal guess rather than an official timeline.
When is eta for ml-dsa wallets and key rotations going live? drew the reply I would assume early next week, and a follow-up asking does ml-dsa change ss58 addrs or evm mapping? or same addr just new keys received only the tentative i don't believe so because it should be the account ID for the mappings before the replier deferred to others. (1) This continues the rollout of Release 487's quantum-resistant wallet types first shipped Oct 27. (2) Neither the launch date nor the address-mapping detail was confirmed by an authoritative voice in the channel. (3) The thread closed with assumptions standing in for an official answer.
SN92 (REAX) closes its last competition round before pausing both tracks as planned, crowning new champions and locking a revised emission split, with its token up 9.91%.
(1) Engine v2 crowned a champion with a 2.08x average speed-up over the reference engine, while the Thursday generalist slot ended in a tie after two entries were removed for missing the required copy-rule margin. (2) A validator bug tied to switching the s1-pro inference model cut weights for 57 miners for about 2.5 hours, which the team called their own fault and corrected with a one-off make-good payment. (3) The owner's 'lock instead of burn' emission change, raising the owner share to 26% and the miner share to 33%, went live on-chain alongside the pause the subnet announced earlier this week; the token rose 9.91% over 24 hours.
Other: SN124 (Swarm) reports evaluation throughput climbing after yesterday's backlog, SN61 (RedTeam) drops 18.53% on an unexplained outflow, and SN44 (Score) and SN117 (everyframe.studio) answer community questions on annotation and emissions.
(1) SN124 (Swarm) said evaluation throughput rose from about 278 seeds/hour toward a target of about 800, with all validators back online, while considering a proposed pre-stop mechanism. (2) SN61 (RedTeam)'s token fell sharply with no team announcement or on-chain change identified as a cause, while the team separately said it was compiling an update on commercial traction including a banking partnership. (3) SN44 (Score) removed several misannotated ground-truth blocks after miner reports, and SN117 (everyframe.studio) explained that miner rewards are tied to product usage rather than its emission split, with documentation updated to reflect 8 providers.

#General

2 REPORTS

Notable

A member reports TAO stuck in a third-party bridge, support goes quiet for over an hour, and the channel's reflex is the standing scam warning

Opening · 01:05 UTC

A member asked does anyone know how to get a hold of taobridge.xyz support? have a large amount of tao stuck in the bridge & am getting no response on the ticket i opened in the discord.

Reply · 01:08–01:10 UTC

A moderator answered with the channel's standing warning, that Anyone DMing or calling you right now is a scammer, even if they look like me, another mod, admin, Opentensor Foundation team member, etc (they are imposters), and directed the member to the bridge's own channel, saying Yeah reaching out through their discord is the best way to get direct support.

Follow-up · 01:12–01:15 UTC

The member reported no progress, writing thanks i opened a ticket but its been an hr+ no response yet, do u know if failed transfers are typically recoverable? there was no error on my part, i sent to the correct address & had dozens of successful bridges before no problem, to which the moderator said only No idea tbh, you'll just have to be patient and added that Discussing this here would just lead to scammers contacting you, so best practice would be to just wait patiently for a reply from support.

Outcome · 01:15 UTC

The member accepted the advice but confirmed the risk was already materializing, writing thanks! yes i figured, already got the friend requests coming in ... but will ignore all that.

3 things to read from it

The exchange shows how a routine third-party support delay doubles as a scam vector the moment it becomes visible in the channel, with impersonators moving in on the stuck user within the hour.
The channel has no tools of its own to help with a bridge failure beyond redirecting to the vendor's support and repeating the standing anti-scam reminder, leaving the member's actual question about fund recoverability unanswered.
This is a new named third-party builder (taobridge.xyz) surfacing in this friction pattern, distinct from the imposter-scam and money-mule cases flagged on Oct 24 and Oct 26.

In the week’s context

The channel's imposter-scam warning has run essentially unchanged across Oct 27, Oct 28 and Oct 29; today it is triggered by a specific bridge complaint rather than a generic reminder.

Where it stands

Unresolved: the member's ticket remained unanswered by the bridge's support team and the question of whether a failed transfer is recoverable was never addressed in the channel.

Other

Other: a testnet faucet outage redirected elsewhere, a private-profile reminder, and an unanswered claim that TAO's price stagnation reflects concentrated supply being dumped on retail

Faucet · 04:09–04:21 UTC

A member building for SN120 reported the testnet faucet and the web app seem to be completely down and asked for tTAO, and was redirected: Please join the taoswap discord and make your request as suggested here.

Moderation · 03:04 UTC

A moderator reminded a member that Please make your profile public and keep it that way. Private profiles are not allowed in this server.

Challenge · 14:48 UTC

A member argued, without reply, that alot of the supply is concentrated into a select few holders, including grayscale, and yet the price has been hovering around 200-300 for 1-2 years, something is up, people are dumping while getting you to be exit liq it seems.

2 things to read from it

Volume held at 18 messages, matching Oct 29, but the day's substance was again routine redirects and moderation rather than ecosystem discussion.
The price-stagnation claim went unanswered, leaving an unverified concentration argument to stand alone in the channel rather than being tested by a reply.

Where it stands

All items closed through redirect or standing reminder except the price-concentration claim, which drew no response in the material.

#Rao

3 REPORTS

Key

An extended argument over subnet 82's emissions policy resurfaces, with accusers pushing for more transparency and other members pushing back

Opening · 05:26 UTC

Continuing an argument raised earlier in the channel, a member framed the complaint as one of unequal treatment: Its so unfair that some are allow to, and the others aren't base on some weird politics.

Pushback · 05:46–15:55 UTC

Another member rejected the framing by comparing it to how other chains allocate subsidies: all blockchians out there give subsidies in a complete centralized way, later restating other blockchains choose which projects to fund in a complete arbitrary and centralized way so there should be nothing controversial if thats the case.

Partial agreement · 08:09–08:12 UTC

Even that same member conceded the specific decision looked wrong: 82 should have nevwr had emussions enabled, i agree with that, i think its mistake that will be solved soon, and called for clearer rules: criteria should be more transpatent sooner rather than later. Thats something that can be solved.

Fatigue · 11:25 UTC

A third member summed up manual control over emissions as a tension the channel keeps circling back to, calling it necessary evil atm though.

3 things to read from it

The exchange is less about new facts than about how the channel keeps relitigating the same structural question: whether a manually switchable emissions mechanism can ever be read as even-handed.
Even a member defending the current setup conceded the specific case looked like a mistake and called for more transparent criteria, narrowing the gap between the two sides more than the opening exchange suggested.
No official or team voice entered the thread, leaving both the complaint and the call for clearer criteria unaddressed by anyone with authority over the policy.

Where it stands

Unresolved; the thread cooled into a shared call for clearer, more transparent emissions criteria rather than a resolution, with no official reply in the material.

Notable

A member asks when quantum-resistant wallets go live, and a follow-up question about address mapping is left to a guess

Opening · 15:10 UTC

A member asked When is eta for ml-dsa wallets and key rotations going live?

Reply · 15:28 UTC

Another member answered informally: I would assume early next week.

Follow-up · 17:07–17:08 UTC

A further question probed a technical detail: does ml-dsa change ss58 addrs or evm mapping? or same addr just new keys, drawing the tentative response i don't believe so because it should be the account ID for the mappings before the replier deferred: [mention] or [mention] would know.

2 things to read from it

This continues the rollout of Release 487's quantum-resistant wallet types, which were confirmed to be on testnet rather than mainnet with no migration needed for existing wallets.
The ETA given is a member's assumption rather than an official timeline, and the more technical address-mapping question was answered only tentatively, with the replier naming others as more authoritative.

In the week’s context

Oct 27's Release 487 added quantum-resistant wallet key types (ML-DSA-65, Falcon-512, Falcon-1024) with an optional key rotation feature, while existing SR/ED wallets continue to work unchanged.
Oct 28's X coverage noted the quantum-resistant wallet support was merged into the release-487 branch and was then on testnet but not yet mainnet.

Where it stands

Partially answered; an informal ETA of early next week was offered and the mapping question received only a tentative answer, with no confirmation from an authoritative voice in the material.

Other

Other: impatience for 'shogting' continues, and a run of banter follows a round of new moderator roles

Mix · 15:16–21:25 UTC

A member revived the previous day's naming of the LP-floor mechanism with Another day of no shorgtang and Pls give shogting, while a wave of new moderator promotions set off extended banter, including Fck complex is a mod now?? We better behave… and a member's own surprised reaction, it seems i am a moderator as well? I dont know how the hell that happened since my ability to make friends in bittensor is ... lets say ... "limited".

2 things to read from it

The shogting quips show the mechanism named on Oct 29 is still awaited rather than launched, but today's mentions add no new detail to that debate.
The bulk of the day's remaining volume in the channel was social banter around moderator promotions rather than ecosystem substance.

In the week’s context

Oct 29's edition reported the LP-floor-price mechanism was officially named 'shogting' with a linked specification, still without a launch date.

Where it stands

Closed as light banter; no new information on a shogting launch date or the moderator changes beyond the jokes themselves.

Subnets

5 REPORTS

SN124 24h −1.47%

Swarm

What happened: SN124 (Swarm)'s Sentinel competition evaluation queue backed up to 38 submissions, with each evaluation taking about five hours, pushing the estimated clearing time past a week. The team attributed the backlog to validators that had not updated and to limited compute capacity. It declined to reduce seed counts, skip evaluations, or stop the contest, citing the 0.5 TAO submission fee paid by participants.
Community: Miners repeatedly raised fairness concerns about the backlog and the dominant champion's continued submissions, with some calling for the contest to be paused. Several proposed a pre-stop or screener-phase mechanism to reject clearly non-competitive submissions before full evaluation.
Official: The team reported evaluation throughput rising from about 278 seeds/hour to about 358, then about 537 seeds/hour, with a target of about 800 seeds/hour, and announced that all validators had come back online. It said it would consider the proposed pre-stop mechanism.

In debate · SN124 (Swarm) evaluation backlog and champion dominance · 12 participants

Some miners argued the contest should be halted until the evaluation issues are resolved.

“The owner team should stop this contest right now. And should find out solution.”
The team said it would not stop the competition and framed the complaint as dissatisfaction over not being champion.

“We cannot stop the competition because you don't like that you are not the champion it will keep running”
Miners proposed a pre-stop mechanism to reject weak submissions early and save evaluation time for both sides.

“If you implement a pre-stop mechanism, both you and the miners could save a lot of t”

SN61 24h −18.53%

RedTeam

What happened: SN61 (RedTeam)'s alpha token fell sharply on a large outflow, including an 18% move in 10 minutes on Oct 29, with no team announcement, code release, or on-chain change identified as a cause. Separately, miners working on the BEX challenge reported unclear rejection messages such as "Invalid submission" and high comparison scores, and asked the team to clarify what counts as meaningful extension detection and whether null validation results indicate a service error.
Community: Community members asked what was happening as the price dropped and referenced the outflow figures reported in a third-party post. Several miners said they had been unable to reduce their comparison scores despite repeated submissions and pressed for clearer guidance on validation rules.
Official: The team said it was compiling an update on commercial traction, including a banking partnership it described as progressing faster than originally expected, ahead of the end-of-year target mentioned in its Novelty Search materials.

SN92 24h +9.91%

REAX

What happened: SN92 (REAX) closed out its last competition round before pausing both tracks: Engine v2 crowned uid 240 as champion with a 2.08x average speed-up over the reference engine, confirmed in a second measurement, while the Thursday generalist slot ended in a tie between uid 83 and uid 114 after two other entries were removed for missing the required copy-rule margin. During the same period, a validator bug tied to the switch of inference model s1-pro from Rune to mammoth-1 cut weights for 57 s1-pro miners for about 2.5 hours; the team paid a one-off make-good of 41.8 alpha to the affected miners. Separately, the subnet owner put in place a 'lock instead of burn' emission change, raising the owner share to 26% and the miner share to 33%, with the validator share unchanged at 41%, locking surplus owner emission on-chain rather than burning it. Over 9 days, 158 models from 85 miners were submitted, with the median entry beating base model mammoth-1 by +7.2 points.
Community: Community members pressed the team on repeated delays to the Engine v2 crowning, which pushed the measurement and results timeline back several hours and required extra GPU boxes. A community member also flagged an edge case in the generalist 'seated champion plus margin' rule when scores cluster near a ceiling, and another questioned on-chain transactions later identified as the make-good payment.
Official: The team confirmed the validator bug behind the s1-pro weight cut, described it as their fault, and detailed the make-good payment of 41.8 alpha. It also acknowledged the generalist tie-break rule issue as a fair point for future rounds and announced the owner-share emission change as agreed and live on chain.

SN44 24h −0.22%

Score

What happened: The SN44 (Score) team removed several ground-truth blocks it judged misannotated across the PPE, Room Dirtiness and Petrol Station elements, following reports from miners. Separately, the team blacklisted two miner hotkeys in the private Football track, stating the operator had deliberately left a model out of the submitted solution and that results could not be reproduced on spot-check. The team said other reported blocks were checked and found to be correctly annotated.
Community: Miners disputed how the block-removal process is applied, with one arguing it can erase a legitimate zero score for the miner who requested the removal. Another miner presented tie-break data for the Vehicle detection leaderboard, questioning whether the logic routinely pays an older, lower-ranked model instead of the top scorer. A separate miner suggested the Football blacklisting may have been aimed at competitors who were close to overtaking the team's own leading models.
Official: The team confirmed removing specific blocks in PPE, Room Dirtiness and Petrol Station, said other reported issues were correctly annotated, and stated the two blacklisted Football hotkeys had purposely left their model out of their submitted solution with results that could not be reproduced.

In debate · Fairness of ground-truth block removal and blacklisting in SN44 (Score) · 7 participants

A miner argued that removing a misannotated block entirely can let a miner erase a legitimate zero score obtained for unrelated reasons, and proposed setting scores to None instead.

“Suppose I got a 0.0 score because of the Chutes issue. I could then deliberately ask you to remove that block over a GT issue”
The team maintained that blocks are removed only because they are misannotated, not in response to individual complaints, and rejected the characterization of the process as unfair.

“We remove missanotated blocks that’s all I don’t know why we are having such a long discussion about it”
A miner suggested the blacklisted Football models had been positioned to challenge the team's own top-ranked models before being removed.

“these models were in a position to challenge your own for the top spot after your long reign at number on, rofl”

SN117 24h +8.69%

everyframe.studio

What happened: SN117 (everyframe.studio) team explained the subnet's emission structure after community questions, detailing a 33% owner emission split alongside a reduced validator take and a temporarily reduced miner take. The team said miner rewards are tied to actual product usage rather than emission percentage, and that validators have limited work on the subnet. Separately, the subnet shipped a Friday update adding 11 new models to its Director product, including Kling 4.0 Edit and VEED Dubbing. The team also noted its documentation was outdated and that the subnet now supports 8 providers, up from what was listed.
Community: Multiple community members and a validator pressed the team repeatedly on why owner emissions are set at 33% and what happens to the unallocated share, with one asking whether stakers' allocation follows similar logic. A user flagged outdated documentation limiting providers and asked about team transparency and doxxing; another subnet owner reached out about a potential collaboration.
Official: The team said miner rewards are driven by real usage rather than the emission split, that validator and miner take were reduced due to low current traffic and limited validator workload, and that documentation referencing 3 providers was outdated, with 8 providers now supported.

More subnet community coverage every day in the Telegram channel →

SN90 top-miner rewards and fund-flow questions

On SN90, a UID that has repeatedly ranked as top miner has been tied by some community members to the subnet owner or validator rather than an independent operator. The discussion centers on whether this reflects the owner temporarily filling capacity in an early-stage subnet or whether reward flows are structured to favor an insider-linked wallet.

Positions

One miner argued that tracing the fund flow shows the owner/validator and the top-ranked miner UID are connected, with the latter acting as an intermediary rather than an independent participant.

“If you trace the flow of funds, it’s clear that the owner/validator and the top miner—UID56”
Another community member said it is reasonable for the subnet owner to provide inference capacity directly when no external miners have joined yet, given entry requirements.

“if nobody is willing to join at the beginning, the SN owner steps in and provides the inference capacity needed to keep things running.”
A separate miner described the emission split as heavily favoring the owner UID, leaving only a small share for other miners.

“owners are getting 90% emission of miner taos. miners can divide remain 10%.”

Official response: A team member addressed the barrier to entry, stating that confidential computing (TDX-ready) nodes are difficult to provision and require BIOS/firmware-level access, and offered to make room for miners who can supply such clusters. The team did not directly respond to the specific claims about the top miner's wallet being linked to the owner or validator.
What to watch: Whether external miners meeting the confidential-computing requirements join SN90 and reduce the owner-operated share of top rankings, and whether the team comments directly on the wallet-linkage claims.

@binance

Binance said its initial investigation points to a compromised engineer's laptop enabling unauthorized withdrawals, with an estimated $6.3B impact and about $3 billion frozen on-chain so far.

View the original post on X ↗
@trishoolai

Trishool's team said its HaloGuard Output Guard reached 83.63 average F1 using a 0.8B model, following a Phase 3 round with 7,500+ jailbreak submissions from 125+ miners.

View the original post on X ↗
@ShizzyUnchained

A community member noted SN92 (REAX)'s roughly $1.9M market cap ranks #96 overall but #22 by emission share at 1.42%, pointing to its Decision Models API product.

View the original post on X ↗
@TaoOutsider

A community member said TAO fell to $220 in a single 4h candle during the Binance incident before recovering near $235, still below the EMA20 at $244 and EMA200 at $265.

View the original post on X ↗
@chutes_ai

Chutes announced Qwen3.8 Max is live on SN64 (Chutes), citing scores of 93.0 on PaperBench and 86.6 on Terminal-Bench 2.1, though it trails on DeepSWE 1.1 at 56.6.

View the original post on X ↗
@nepher_robotics

Nepher Robotics launched the Franka Tabletop RL Challenge Phase 1 on SN49, where miners train a robotic arm to grasp and stack objects, with rewards split 70/20/10 among the top 3.

View the original post on X ↗
@metanova_labs

Metanova Labs announced an emission split update for NOVA's Data Generation Fund to Owner 26% / Miners 33% / Validators 41%, directing more resources toward experimental data generation.

View the original post on X ↗
@adtao_ppcrebel

AdTAO announced SN21 (AdTAO) Alpha is now tradable on Base via ForeverMoney, describing the Base token as a bridged representation of AdTAO's Alpha on Bittensor.

View the original post on X ↗

◆2026-10-31 · End of this edition

Past editions +

24H Market

Gainers

Losers

Bittensor Daily — October 31, 2026

#General

A member reports TAO stuck in a third-party bridge, support goes quiet for over an hour, and the channel's reflex is the standing scam warning

Other: a testnet faucet outage redirected elsewhere, a private-profile reminder, and an unanswered claim that TAO's price stagnation reflects concentrated supply being dumped on retail

#Rao

An extended argument over subnet 82's emissions policy resurfaces, with accusers pushing for more transparency and other members pushing back

A member asks when quantum-resistant wallets go live, and a follow-up question about address mapping is left to a guess

Other: impatience for 'shogting' continues, and a run of banter follows a round of new moderator roles

Subnets

Swarm

RedTeam

REAX

Score

everyframe.studio

SN90 top-miner rewards and fund-flow questions

24H Market

↗Gainers

↘Losers

Bittensor Daily — October 31, 2026

Today's highlights

Discord conversations worth following

A member reports TAO stuck in a third-party bridge, support goes quiet for over an hour, and the channel's reflex is the standing scam warning

Other: a testnet faucet outage redirected elsewhere, a private-profile reminder, and an unanswered claim that TAO's price stagnation reflects concentrated supply being dumped on retail

An extended argument over subnet 82's emissions policy resurfaces, with accusers pushing for more transparency and other members pushing back

A member asks when quantum-resistant wallets go live, and a follow-up question about address mapping is left to a guess

Other: impatience for 'shogting' continues, and a run of banter follows a round of new moderator roles

Swarm

RedTeam

REAX

Score

everyframe.studio

Ecosystem debate

SN90 top-miner rewards and fund-flow questions

Voices on X

Recent editions

Gainers

Losers