This episode is a Bittensor catch-up rather than a subnet interview, with Siam back from three weeks in California and Mark writing from Spain. The main focus is the pace of recent BitTensor “upgrades,” especially Root Reborn, validator baskets, deregistration mechanics, conviction, chain buys, and the looming arrival of shorting. Both remain strongly bullish on Bittensor, but argue that the ecosystem is becoming difficult for investors, subnet owners, and potential new teams to navigate because rules are changing quickly and often without enough notice, roadmap clarity, or explanation. Mark frames his recent article as a call for better process rather than a complaint: the issue is not that changes are bad, but that constant changes create fatigue, uncertainty, and make it harder for serious teams and institutional capital to commit.

A major theme is whether price alone is the right mechanism for deciding which subnets survive. They argue current deregistration can become a popularity contest, while real businesses, especially enterprise or research-focused subnets, often need 6–24 months to generate meaningful revenue. They compare this to startups like Tesla, Apple, Anthropic, or enterprise software companies, where patient capital is required before results arrive. Siam also highlights that markets inside Bittensor are still inefficient: tweets, Telegram comments, and short-term narratives can move subnet prices far more than fundamentals. They discuss how Root Reborn and chain buys may create new investment metas, but sudden future changes could instantly break those strategies, which is exactly why clearer process matters.

They also debate conviction and whether it actually protects investors from rug pulls. Both are sceptical, with Siam calling it “virtue signalling” and Mark arguing it may restrict good teams from using alpha to fund growth while not necessarily stopping bad actors. They also warn that conviction plus shorting could increase the power of deep-pocketed players to influence, pressure, or even attack subnets. The closing message is that Bittensor still has huge talent and potential, but the network’s incentive mechanism needs refinement so value, talent, capital, and long-term builders are better aligned. They finish by reinforcing that they are not bearish or moaning; they are pushing for improvements because they believe Bittensor can become much bigger if the ecosystem becomes easier to understand, invest in, and build within.

In this episode, Mark and Siam discuss why they now view Const’s rapid protocol changes more positively: although constant changes can make institutional investors nervous, they argue Const is in “founder beast mode,” trying to fix Bittensor’s core mechanics before the network scales. They focus heavily on “Root Reborn,” especially the distinction between emissions and injections: miner/validator/subnet-owner emissions are not what’s changing; the new formula affects liquidity-pool injections, rewarding subnets with stronger root proportion, stronger EMA price, and lower miner burn. They frame this as a way to stop zombie subnets, reduce gaming, and reward teams that are actually producing value.

They also cover the new “naughty list” / injection-eligibility list, arguing it is less a punishment list and more a forcing function for subnets to prove their incentive mechanisms work. New subnet registrations now start with injections off by default, meaning teams need to be ready from day one rather than buying a slot and sitting on it. Mark and Siam debate whether this kills the secondary subnet-slot market, why new subnets may now have a better setup than buying old slots, and how the “Goldilocks subnet” might be a new project with high root prop, high starting price, low burn, real product-market fit, and revenue/buyback capacity from launch. They briefly touch on conviction, impending shorting, and then plug DSV’s upcoming “Inside Bittensor” event in London, where they’ll reveal DSV’s first subnet, Subnet 69.

This session starts with Mark and Siam briefly addressing the decision to pivot away from “Handshake”: it didn’t gain the traction they hoped, the team’s focus drifted toward building trading/mining “skills” that didn’t feel like a scalable revenue path, and they chose to “rip the band-aid off” rather than keep a zombie project alive. They argue that in AI (especially on Bittensor) things change fast, so it’s better to redeploy talented builders quickly, even if that decision attracts criticism.

The main segment features Subnet 103 “Djinn,” led by Harry Crane (stats professor with deep prediction markets/sports betting background) and Iosef Gerstein (finance + scientific startups). Djinn’s core idea is a “genius–idiot network”: profitable bettors (“geniuses”) have an edge but get limited/banned by sportsbooks, while the mass of recreational bettors (“idiots,” i.e., accounts that can still place bets) can execute. Djinn is building a trustless, privacy-preserving information exchange to connect the two—geniuses sell time-sensitive betting signals, buyers execute them wherever they have access (Bet365, Polymarket, etc.), and the protocol uses Bittensor miners/validators for verification and obfuscation (including decoys) so neither Djinn nor outsiders can easily steal signals. Revenue is expected to come from transaction fees (they discuss ~0.5% as a working idea), with buybacks/utility mechanisms considered to support alpha; they’re currently moving from fake-money testing to low-stakes real-money testing and say they’ll launch only when they’re confident it’s safe.