Crypto and Robotics: True Revolution or New Speculative Bubble?

Illustration generated with OpenAI

22 Sep 2026Mattis Meichler

Tether, Bittensor, and Virtuals Bet on Robotics

Robotics is becoming one of the new frontiers for crypto. Indeed, physical AI (artificial intelligence systems capable of perceiving their environment and enabling robots to act in the real world) requires capital, data, computing power, and payment infrastructures.

Last June, Tether, the issuer of USDT, led a funding round of up to $1.4 billion for humanoid robot manufacturer NEURA Robotics, alongside Amazon, NVIDIA, Qualcomm, Bosch, and Schaeffler. Tether plans to integrate a crypto wallet system into NEURA's robots, allowing them to automatically receive and make certain payments in the future.

Bittensor is exploring another avenue. Its network is organized into << subnets >>, specialized sub-networks focused on a specific task and having their own evaluation rules. OpenRoboto, subnet 80, focuses on robotics. Participants improve Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models capable of linking what a robot sees, the instructions it receives, and the physical actions it must perform. The best models are then rewarded through Bittensor's incentive system.

Virtuals is taking yet another path: building an economy of AI agents powering robots that could eventually have a digital identity, a wallet, and receive payments for the tasks they perform.

Payments, Identity... the Real Use Cases?

When discussing the links between robotics and crypto, one of the easiest use cases to understand concerns payments between machines. A robot could, for example, automatically pay a charging station, purchase data it needs to complete a mission, or settle access to an online service without human intervention. In this type of scenario, stablecoins can be of interest as they allow for programmable and automated payments.

But for a robot to pay or access a service, its identity must be verifiable, and it must be known what it is authorized to do. This is the area where OpenMind is working with FABRIC, a protocol aimed at creating verifiable digital identities for machines. Experimental standards like ERC-7777 explore the same idea: giving robots an on-chain identity that could serve to prove their provenance, access rights, or certain actions performed.

Peaq, a blockchain specialized in DePIN and what it calls the << Machine Economy >>, pushes this logic further. In its model, robots could receive and spend stablecoins for their everyday transactions, while tokens would be used to organize economic rights, access to certain services, or governance of the networks in which machines participate.

The Machine Economy needs better token models
DePIN and DePAI token economics need an upgrade
Models designed to bootstrap networks are often not designed to sustain billions of machines
For builders, there's a big space emerging around bonding, buy-and-burn, stablecoins, and... pic.twitter.com/fkTfMk4U73
--- peaq (@peaq) September 21, 2026

Peaq is also experimenting with another avenue: << Robot RWAs >>. The idea is to tokenize physical machines capable of generating income. Specifically, a robot or automated equipment can be represented by tokens, allowing multiple investors to gain exposure to the income it produces. A robotic farm in Hong Kong has thus been fractionated into tokens representing automated agricultural equipment, with revenues announced in USDT.

Is the Token Really Necessary?

However, one can question the actual utility of tokens and, more broadly, of crypto in robotics. A robot can function perfectly well without a blockchain. Tesla is developing Optimus without a native token, Amazon is already operating thousands of robots with traditional infrastructures, and Google trains its AI models without a DAO or tokenized economy.

Even automated payments do not necessarily require crypto. A robot could just as easily use a banking API, a proprietary system, or a centralized platform to pay for a service or receive compensation.

The interest of blockchain becomes more concrete in a highly decentralized environment, where many robots would belong to different actors and need to exchange data, purchase services, prove their identity, or automatically distribute income. In this case, a shared ledger could facilitate coordination between machines and operators without relying on a single central platform.

The need for tokens will thus need to be demonstrated on a case-by-case basis. Because there is a real risk of seeing some crypto projects latch onto the speculative wave currently surrounding robotics and physical AI, without providing sufficiently clear utility to justify the existence of a token.

Sources: MemeBurn, peaq on X, Stacy Muur on X

Mattis Meichler356 articles
A journalist passionate about Blockchain, the Web3 ecosystem, and Digital Art, I chronicle the evolution of these emerging sectors.

This content is provided for general informational purposes only and doesn't constitute financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Any events, rewards, online promotions, or related information mentioned herein should not be considered a recommendation, solicitation, or invitation to purchase, sell, trade, or otherwise deal in any crypto assets. Crypto assets are highly volatile and may result in loss. The availability of WEEX services, products, and related events may vary by region. You are responsible for ensuring that your participation is in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations.