BREW Just Hit Binance Alpha. Is $BEM Next? $BREW just made it onto Binance Alpha. Now look at the timeline. 👀 1⃣ Sep 11: News breaks that BNB Chain growth executive Nina Rong followed BREW. 2⃣ Sep 23: BREW joins an official BNB Chain Space. 3⃣ Sep 25: BREW lands on Binance Alpha. 🚀After the Alpha listing, BREW ran as high as +285% from its 24-hour low. At 9:47 AM KST on Sep 26, it was still +173% from that same low. Now put $BEM on that timeline: 1⃣ Sep 23, 12:36 PM KST: Nina Rong follows TapeOut developer @Blonskr. 2⃣ Just 8 hours later: TapeOut appears alongside BREW in an official BNB Chain Space. BREW took roughly 12 days to go from the follow news to that Space. BEM did it on the same day. 3⃣ One step remains unconfirmed: Binance Alpha. I’m watching $BEM very closely. If another announcement drops, will everyone pretend the signs weren’t there? 🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀 @Blonskr @nina_rong

[바낸 VS OKX] 최근 $BEM과 Tapeout을 둘러싼 흐름이 상당히 흥미로움 Tapeout은 OKX 생태계의 @XLayerOfficial로 체인을 확장한 데 이어 AMA와 해커톤까지 진행하며 협력을 강화중 그러자 BNB 쪽에서도 본격적인 반응이 나타나기 시작 BNB Chain의 성장 총괄인 @nina_rong이 @Blonskr를 직접 팔로우했고, TapeOut은 @BNBCHAIN 공식 AMA에도 초청 OKX·X Layer와 BNB Chain 양쪽이 경쟁하듯 TapeOut에 관심을 보이는 흐름. 물론 팔로우나 AMA만으로 무언가를 단정할 수는 없지만, 생태계 차원의 관심이 커지고 있다는 점은 분명해 보임 더욱 기대되는 점은 아직 @fourdotmemezh 대형 공식 협업 발표조차 나오지 않았다는 것. 이 흐름이라면 조만간 또 다른 좋은 소식들이 이어질 수도 있을듯. $BEM, 이제부터 진짜 시작일지도 👀

What Is TapeOut? A Guide to the TapeOut Stack. This research explores how Circuits, DeWEB, Containers, TapeKit and TapeSend are forming a new stack for ownable, reusable computation, and why @Blonskr ’s vision deserves attention.

[BEM!! BEM! BEM] 요즘 나는 $BEM의 가격보다 TapeOut 생태계가 성장하는 속도에 더 놀라는 중 TapeOut과 BEM이 시작된 지 이제 겨우 한 달 그런데 현재 BEM 홀더는 7,700명을 넘어섰고, 하루 DEX 거래량은 수십만 달러 규모다. 아직 Binance Alpha나 대형 CEX에 제대로 노출되지도 않은 초기 프로젝트라는 점을 생각하면 굿! 1) 더 중요한 것은 단순한 가격 상승이 아니다. BEM은 매일 약 7,200개의 BEM이 새롭게 발행된다. 초기에는 하루 발행량이 당시 누적 공급량의 10%를 넘을 정도로 강한 희석 압력이 존재했다. 그러나 현재 온체인 총발행량 기준으로 하루 신규 발행 부담은 약 3.4%까지 내려왔다. 시간이 지날수록 이 비율은 계속 낮아지고, 반감기가 도래하면 발행 속도도 절반으로 줄어든다. 물론 하루 3.4%도 절대 작은 공급은 아니다. 그럼에도 홀더 수와 거래량은 계속 증가했고, 가격 역시 큰 변동 속에서 신규 발행 물량을 상당히 잘 흡수하고 있다. 시장의 실제 수요가 존재하지 않았다면 불가능한 모습이라고 생각한다. 2) 이제는 소각 구조까지 작동하기 시작했다. TapeHub는 출시 3일 만에 약 154 BNB의 프로토콜 수익을 만들었고, 그중 절반인 약 77 BNB로 1,405 BEM을 시장에서 직접 매수해 소각했다. 공식 트랜지스터·회로 시장도 거래 수수료의 50%를 BEM 바이백 및 소각에 사용하기 시작했으며, 더욱 인상적인 것은 독립적으로 만들어진 일부 서드파티 서비스들까지 개발자의 방향에 공감해 수익의 50%를 BEM 매입·소각에 사용하고 있다는 점이다. 아직 소각량이 전체 신규 발행량을 완전히 상쇄하는 수준은 아니다. 하지만 단순히 “언젠가 소각하겠다”는 약속이 아니라, 실제 프로토콜 수익이 발생하고 그 수익이 공개시장 매수와 소각으로 연결되고 있다는 것이 중요하다. 3) TapeOut의 진짜 강점은 개발 속도다. PoD 채굴, 권한 포기와 계약 봉인, TapeHub, TapeKit, DeWEB, 회로 컨테이너, 공식 시장의 바이백·소각까지 매우 짧은 시간 안에 계속해서 새로운 기능을 공개하고 있다. 팀원과 협력자도 점점 늘어나고 있으며, 업데이트가 멈추지 않는다. 대부분의 프로젝트가 로드맵과 예고만 반복할 때 TapeOut은 실제 제품을 먼저 만들고 다음 단계로 이동한다. 4) 외부 확장 속도도 놀랍다. 오늘은 @fourdotmemezh 와 함께 AMA를 진행하며, 양측은 단순한 홍보가 아니라 TapeHub의 메커니즘을 포밈에 연결하는 기술 협업을 진행하고 있다. 동시에 OKX의 @XLayerOfficialr 및 @Ignixbot와는 총상금 14,000달러 규모의 첫 TapeOut Genesis Transistor Hackathon을 공동으로 개최한다. 참가자들은 X Layer 위에 실제 프로세서를 배포하고, 우승자가 설계한 트랜지스터는 Ignix Genesis Transistor가 된다. 한 달 된 프로젝트가 포밈와 기술 협업을 진행하고, OKX/X Layer 생태계와 공동 해커톤까지 개최하는 모습을 보고 있으면 신기할 정도다. 5) 그러나 내가 가장 높게 평가하는 것은 커뮤니티다. 누가 돈을 주거나 지시하지 않았는데도 사람들이 자발적으로 영상을 만들고, 분석 글을 쓰고, 여러 언어로 번역하고, 대시보드와 거래 도구, 채굴 관리 서비스, 마켓과 다양한 서드파티 애플리케이션을 만들고 있다. 광고비로 잠깐의 관심은 살 수 있다. 하지만 사람들이 자신의 시간과 개발 능력을 자발적으로 투입하게 만드는 것은 돈만으로 만들 수 없다. 이것이 TapeOut과 BEM이 가진 가장 강력한 자산이라고 생각한다. 처음에는 대부분 중국어 커뮤니티에서만 알려졌지만 이제는 한국을 비롯한 아시아권으로 확산되고 있으며, 영어권 X에서도 분석과 언급이 분명히 늘어나고 있다. 기술, 사용자, 거래량, 커뮤니티, 서드파티 개발, 수익 그리고 바이백·소각 구조가 동시에 성장하고 있다. 개인적으로 이제 Binance Alpha와 OKX 현물 상장은 “가능할까?”보다 “언제일까?”에 더 가까운 문제라고 생각한다. 오히려 이렇게 빠르게 성장하고 실제 결과물을 계속 내놓는 프로젝트를 주요 거래소들이 언제까지 외면할 수 있을지가 궁금하다. TapeOut은 이제 겨우 한 달 됐다. 그런데 이미 하나의 토큰을 넘어, 사람들이 직접 만들고 거래하고 확장하는 생태계가 되어가고 있다. 나는 BEM을 상당량 보유한 홀더이므로 당연히 편향돼 있다. 하지만 내가 계속 BEM을 높게 평가하는 이유는 단순히 가격이 올랐기 때문이 아니다. 이 프로젝트가 매일 새로운 결과물을 내놓고 있고, 어제보다 오늘 더 많은 사람이 참여하고 있으며, 성장 속도가 아직 느려질 기미를 보이지 않기 때문이다. $BEM과 TapeOut의 진짜 이야기는 이제 시작됐다고 생각한다. #BEM #TapeOut #BNBChain #XLayer @Blonskr @BNBCHAIN @cz_binance 짱펑아 뭐하니

More chains. More users. More circuits and containers. More protocol revenue. More $BEM bought back and burned. That is the larger picture behind this expansion. Tapeout is the new HTTP. After reading this announcement, I was impressed but I also had an important question. The advantages were immediately clear. DeWEB is no longer being presented as only a website storage experiment. TapeOut is attempting to build a verifiable network layer across multiple public blockchains. TapeKit provides serverless and DNS independent access to on chain frontends. TapeSend adds end to end encrypted, bridge free messaging between circuit containers on different chains. Deployment on the X Layer mainnet also shows that this multi chain vision has already moved beyond a simple concept. However, as a major $BEM holder, I initially had some concerns. TapeOut is already developing V2, TapeHub, the Four.meme integration, circuit containers, DeWEB, TapeKit, and now TapeSend. Could this expansion be interpreted as the project moving in too many directions at once? More importantly, how would activity on X Layer and other future chains create value for $BEM? If TapeOut’s technology continued expanding while BEM remained economically isolated on BNB Chain, the protocol could succeed without that success necessarily flowing back to BEM holders. I was also concerned that expanding beyond BNB Chain might weaken TapeOut’s identity as a unique BNB ecosystem project. Because I did not want these questions to create unnecessary public misunderstanding, I asked the developer privately. His explanation made the full economic logic much clearer. The long term goal is to have both Binance Wallet and OKX Wallet integrate the underlying TapeOut Protocol, while their browsers incorporate TapeKit and TapeSend. Users would then be able to enter a circuit container ID and directly access verifiable network services. As more users and developers enter the network, more circuits will be taped out and more containers will be activated. That creates two primary sources of protocol revenue: • Tapeout fees • Circuit container activation fees A percentage of those revenues would then be used to buy back and burn $BEM. The complete economic flow is therefore: Wallet integration → More users accessing DeWEB services → More developers creating circuits and containers → More tapeout and container activation fees → $BEM buybacks and burns This answered my biggest concern. DeWEB, TapeKit, TapeSend, and the expansion to X Layer are not intended to become disconnected side projects. They are designed as additional entry points that bring more developers, users, and economic activity into the TapeOut ecosystem—with part of that activity ultimately flowing back to BEM through buybacks and burns. In other words, the multi chain expansion broadens the top of the funnel, while $BEM is intended to remain at the center of the economic value capture model. Of course, execution will still matter. Binance Wallet and OKX Wallet integration represent the goal, not an announced partnership at this stage. The exact buyback percentage, implementation schedule, and mechanism will also need to become clearer over time. But the underlying direction now makes much more sense to me. My original concern was that TapeOut might be expanding away from $BEM. After hearing the complete economic logic, I now understand that the expansion is intended to generate more usage, more protocol revenue, and ultimately more BEM buybacks and burns. If this vision is successfully implemented, TapeOut will not simply be another application on a blockchain. It could become an open standard and infrastructure layer for verifiable network services across multiple public chains. @XLayerOfficial @zakk_okx @bitcoin2themars @wallet @cz_binance @Blonskr @BNBCHAIN

The Missing Layer of TapeOut: From Circuits to Verifiable Capabilities Over the last 24 hours, several seemingly unrelated developments appeared around TapeOut: • TapeKit turned an on chain Container into a verifiable website. • A new tool converted neural network diagrams into NAND circuits. • A Circuit-Native AI Agent placed spending, messaging, execution and file permissions behind NAND/LATCH logic. • @Blonskr asked whether TapeKit should introduce its own TAP-10 standard or submit a BAP proposal to BNB Chain. I do not think these are four separate experiments. Together, they suggest that TapeOut may be approaching a new category: The Verifiable Capability Layer. A Circuit should no longer be viewed only as something people design, own and use to mine $BEM. It can become a reusable capability: • a website that can be independently verified • an AI policy that cannot be bypassed with a prompt • a neural network rule converted into deterministic logic • a permission module controlling what an agent can spend or execute • a production tool that another application can discover and call However, isolated capabilities do not automatically create an ecosystem. They need a common language. That is why I believe TAP-10 should not merely be another token standard. It should become a Circuit Capability Standard. A minimal TAP-10 manifest could describe: Circuit identity and version Code and content hash Inputs, outputs and state format Permissions and ownership Verification method and test vectors NAND, LATCH, gas and execution requirements Licensing, payment and revenue routing With such a standard, applications would not need to understand how every individual Circuit was built. They would only need to understand TAP-10. This would change the roles of the existing products: • TapeOut becomes the fabrication and verification layer. • TapeKit becomes the browser and runtime. • TapeHub becomes the registry and marketplace. • TAP-10 becomes the common interface connecting everything. In simple terms: TapeOut currently has components. TAP-10 could turn them into an economy. TAP-10 or BAP? I do not think this must be an either or decision. My preferred sequence would be: Publish TAP-10 v0.1 as an open community specification. Prove it with at least three independent applications. Release a reference SDK, validator and searchable registry. Then submit the working standard to BNB Chain through the appropriate proposal process. TAP-10 would create protocol ownership and identity. A BNB Chain proposal could later provide broader recognition, feedback and distribution. Build the working standard first. Bring the proof to BNB Chain second. Where does $BEM fit? This is also where the BEM economy must become clearer. If publishing, certifying, executing or licensing TAP-10 capabilities produces fees, those fees should be transparently connected to BEM demand, buybacks or burns. The community should be able to measure: • fees generated by external users • BEM bought or burned • NAND and LATCH consumed • independent developers using the standard • recurring execution rather than one time demos The most important ratio would no longer be only daily volume or holder growth. It would be: External protocol revenue and BEM demand versus daily BEM issuance. What does this mean for Binance Alpha? BEM can be compared with recent Alpha projects by volume, liquidity and holders. I have done that before. But numerical qualification alone does not create a moat. The more important question is whether Binance can describe BEM in one clear sentence. AI tokens already have a category. Memecoins already have a category. Launchpad tokens already have a category. TapeOut still needs to define its own. If TAP-10 allows independent developers to publish and combine verifiable capabilities on BNB Chain, the description becomes much clearer: TapeOut is the verifiable capability and circuit infrastructure of BNB Chain. That is a stronger Binance Alpha argument than saying only that BEM has enough holders or trading volume. A listing should not be the final purpose of the technology. If TapeOut creates a category that BNB Chain does not currently have, attention, users and listings can become consequences of that achievement. So perhaps the question is no longer: “Will $BEM enter Binance Alpha?” The bigger question is: Can TAP-10 make BNB Chain the home of verifiable digital capabilities? If the answer becomes yes, Binance Alpha may be only one milestone along the way. @Blonskr @BruceBlue @zhuoning293 @BNBCHAIN #TapeOut #TAP10 #BEM #BNBChain

Tapeout의 Circuit Container를 검증 가능한 온체인 웹사이트 주소로 바꿔주는 오픈소스 브라우저 레이어를 만들었네 ㄷㄷ 공개된 코드를 직접 내려받아 테스트해 봤는데, 단위 테스트 22개와 BNB Chain 메인넷 읽기 테스트 9개가 모두 통과했고 확장 프로그램과 게이트웨이 빌드도 정상적으로 완료. 단순한 아이디어가 아니라 실제로 작동하는 초기 제품임을 인정 이번 발표는 지금까지 TapeOut에서 가장 중요한 발표일지도 모르겠다. Tapeout을 채굴과 런치패드를 넘어 실제 인터넷 인프라의 영역으로 확장하는 것이니까? 앞으로 지갑과 앱들이 TapeKit을 통합하기 시작한다면, BNB Chain의 네이티브 웹 레이어가 될 수도 있을수도. 데모가 정말 기대된다. @Blonskr @cz_binance @heyibinance @rira_rong @BNBCHAIN

[How Much Has $BEM Changed in Seven Days?] Is $BEM Becoming a Binance Alpha Candidate? The price increased more than sixfold. Circulating market capitalization grew from below $1M to approximately $9.3M. Daily volume on one major pool expanded by more than 25 times. Nearly 1,600 additional wallets became holders. The most important signal is not the price increase alone. Trading activity and holder growth expanded simultaneously, showing that BEM is attracting a much broader group of market participants than it was one week ago. Binance states that Alpha candidates are evaluated using factors including strong community interest, increasing traction, and alignment with important market trends. BEM now demonstrates measurable progress in all three areas: Rapidly increasing holders and community attention More than $4M in 24-hour volume on a single major pool A distinctive BNB Chain-native Proof-of-Design and on-chain hardware narrative Real on-chain mining and protocol activity rather than only a token narrative Based on these figures, I believe BEM has moved from being an outside possibility to becoming a strong and credible Binance Alpha candidate. However, there is no guaranteed listing formula. The next test is whether BEM can maintain its holder base and trading activity after the current excitement cools down. Liquidity remains relatively thin, daily emissions are high compared with the present circulating supply, and some multi-pool volume may come from bots or arbitrage. Even after accounting for those risks, a 25× increase in major-pool volume and a 46.5% expansion in holders within seven days represent the kind of accelerating traction that Binance Alpha is designed to identify. @Blonskr #tapeout $bem

Big things are coming👀

blog.naver.com/elwallin/2243… [TapeOut Protocol / $BEM 정리] 2주 전, 이 글을 쓰면서 앞으로 딱 2주를 지켜보겠다고 했는데 2주가 딱 지남. 당시 $BEM은 약 $17, 시가총액은 약 $870K. 하루 7,200 BEM이 새로 발행되기 때문에 2주 동안 공급량이 거의 3배로 늘어날 예정이었음 그래서 가격이 오르지 않고 그대로 유지되기만 해도 시가총액은 당시의 약 3배, 즉 약 200% 증가한 것이므로 상당한 신규 수요가 공급을 흡수한 강한 신호라고 생각했는데 그리고 정확히 2주가 지난 지금, 결과는 예상보다 더 강한상태 가격은 유지되는 데 그치지 않고 오히려 상승했고, 홀더와 시장의 관심도 빠르게 증가. 그 결과 시가총액은 당시와 비교해 5배 이상 이는 강한 초기 발행량을 시장이 받아내는 동안 프로젝트에 대한 가치평가 자체가 예상보다 훨씬 빠르게 커진 이유가 아닐까? 나도 역시 그사이 직접 투자했고, 현재 꽤 의미 있는 수익을 보고 있는 중. 하지만 지금 더 궁금한 것은 이미 오른 가격보다도 아직 공개되지 않은 다음 단계 -TapeOut V2 -공식 런치패드 -추가 상용 프로젝트와 외부 생태계 연동 -프로토콜 수수료를 통한 실제 BEM 매입·소각 -영어권 시장으로의 확장 -그리고 아직 확정된 것은 아니지만 Binance Alpha와 같은 추가 노출 가능성 첫 번째 상용 프로젝트는 이제 막 등장했지만, 예고된 생태계의 대부분은 아직 본격적으로 공개되지 않았음. 2주 전 내 핵심 질문은 이것! “하루 7,200 BEM의 공급을 견디면서 현재 가격을 유지할 수 있을까?” 지금 내 질문은?? “V2와 런치패드, 다양한 프로젝트들이 실제로 출시되고 사용자·수수료·BEM 소각으로 연결된다면 TapeOut은 과연 어디까지 성장할 수 있을까?” 물론 시가총액이 거의 5배가 된 만큼 변동성과 리스크도 훨씬 커졌다. 계획은 실제 결과가 아니며, 앞으로는 가격보다 제품 출시와 실사용 데이터를 확인해야 한다. 그래도 2주 전 세웠던 가설이 예상보다 강하게 현실화되는 과정을 직접 지켜본 것은 상당히 흥미롭다. 이제 다음 2주가 더욱 궁금해지는구만 shout ou @Blonskr

#TapeOut first commercial project is live an important step from mining toward real on-chain production. And this is only the beginning. With V2, the launchpad, $BEM utility and burns, and more real projects ahead, I’m excited to see what comes next.

I just wanted to tell you how much I appreciate the work you’ve been doing. You continue to build and make real progress every single day, and that consistency is genuinely impressive. You don’t just talk about plans you keep delivering and proving them through action. Today’s decision to relinquish all administrative control also shows how seriously you take the long-term credibility of BEM. I have great respect for your dedication and responsibility. Please take care of your health and get enough rest as well. Keep up the amazing work I’m proud to support what you’re building.

Funny enough, TapeOut’s biggest strength and biggest concern seemed to come from the same place: A young developer @Blonskr with relentless drive. And a community waiting for him to finish school. 😂 Imagine building an on-chain computer while your bottleneck is the school timetable. That’s why this announcement matters. An official logo and X account are on the way, and according to the developer, two full-time members have already joined as the official team takes shape. A logo alone doesn’t change the technology. But having people share development, operations, and communications does. It creates room to keep building while also growing the community and pursuing external collaborations. We’ve already seen steps in that direction: engagement with mining communities, a security audit by Salus, and @fourdotmemezh s public invitation to talk. Now TapeOut is building the team and official communication channels to carry that momentum forward. What keeps me interested is that the announcements come with things we can actually inspect. TapeOut started with NAND circuit design and Proof of Design mining. It then expanded into reusable components and stateful Circuit Containers. Most recently, the developer demonstrated Linux booting on BNB Chain. It is still an experiment with substantial cost and performance limitations. But the progress from ideas to working implementations is what makes it worth following. The potential goes beyond another mining mechanism. One developer builds a circuit. Another reuses it, adds persistent state, and combines it with other components to create something more useful. If outside developers and real users start participating, the basis on which we evaluate TapeOut could change significantly. CZ’s earlier question about use cases gets right to the heart of this. The Linux demo is an interesting technical response. The next response needs to be a product people actually use—and find valuable enough to pay for. That’s why I’m looking forward to more than the V2 launch: • Useful third-party applications. • Concrete outcomes from the conversation with @fourdotmemezh • Continued security audits and technical validation. • A clearer connection between real usage and demand for BEM. A dedicated team could help move these efforts forward together and accelerate both development and communication. Building a team doesn’t guarantee success. But for a project less than a month old, producing working technology while putting an organization around it is an encouraging direction. @cz_binance @fourdotmemezh @salus_sec I hope you’ll keep an eye on what this small experiment could grow into on BNB Chain. @Blonskr After-school building now has a full-time team behind it. Looking forward to what comes next. 🚀 #TapeOut #BEM #BNBChain $BEM

In August, @cz_binance asked @Blonskr: “What’s the use case?” TapeOut’s latest milestone gives that conversation something concrete to examine: a Linux 6.5.12 demo on BNB Chain mainnet. According to the published implementation notes, RISC-V instructions execute inside L1 transactions, with registers and 16 MB of memory stored on-chain. A TapeOut Circuit Container owns the machine. The demo uses a RISC-V interpreter written in Yul. Gas costs remain substantial, and practical applications still need to prove their value. What interests me now is what independent builders could make with reusable components and persistent state—and whether people would actually pay to use it. @fourdotmemezh has already invited the developer to discuss it further, and he has accepted. CZ, what useful application would you want to see demonstrated next? @Blonskr could walk us through the implementation, costs and remaining limitations.

我基于 @BNBCHAIN ，实现了历史上第一次在L1主网上跑Linux。这是第一个每条指令都由 L1 主网交易执行、全部状态都存在 L1 上的 Linux。 此前这个领域公认的先行者是 Cartesi：它的 RISC-V 虚拟机能启动完整的 Linux，但 Linux 是在链下节点上跑的，以太坊 L1 只负责结算，只有当参与者对结果有争议时，才把争议的那一步拿到链上重算。正常情况下，L1 从头到尾没有执行过一条 Linux 指令。它是 L2 框架，靠欺诈证明和至少一个诚实的挑战者。 而TapeOut做的是真正的，Linux 的每一条指令都在 BNBChain 主网的交易里由验证者算出来，并且拥有32 个寄存器、全部 CSR以及16 MB 内存的每一页都在BNBChain主网上，没有任何链下执行。也就是说Cartesi 上让 L1 能验证 Linux，我们让BNBChain 真实的链上运行完整的 Linux。 它是由TapeOut 的电路+容器组成，第一次组成了一台完整的链上计算机。一片电路（#4246）开通了容器，容器成了这台机器的主人，谁持有这片电路的 NFT，谁就是它的管理员。CPU 是一个 RISC-V 元件，内存是 16 MB、按 1 KB 分页的 16,384 个页合约，写时复制。主板合约用交易跑指令，把改过的内存页写回链上，把串口输出发成事件。 装的是 kernelorg 主线 Linux 6.5.12，它从复位向量 0x80000000 上电，在主网上安拍跑完整个内核启动，直到 root 登录：一共44,988 拍，9,000 余笔交易（花了我好多bnb啊，有点肉疼，另外我还找bnbchain的小伙伴申请了10个tBNB做的测试网测试，感谢 @0xSandy1913 帮助协调测试网的tBNB）。 另外呢，任何人都可以用它。打开 tapeout.net/linux.html，像用真实终端一样直接敲命令：uname -a 会告诉你这是 riscv32 上的 Linux 6.5.12；factor 1000000007 在链上做一次质因数分解；echo 写一个文件，这个文件就住在主网上某一页合约的字节码里，你能在 BscScan 上看见它，谁使用谁自己付 gas（我可支付不起这么多人测试，哈哈）。 这件事说明： @BNBCHAIN 不只是一个公共账本，它可以基于TapeOut承载可验证的生产工具，一台计算机是所有生产工具的底座。 接下来：用门级 RISC-V 核做这台机器的裁判，让每一条指令都有晶体管级的定义；让 Linux 能直接读链上数据；让更多电路拥有自己的不同类型的机器。BNB Chain 的延展性比大多数人想象的大得多，TapeOut在为此全力以赴。 测试用例：tapeout.net/linux.html @cz_binance @heyibinance @BNBCHAIN @fourdotmemezh

A technical question for @VitalikButerin: Your essays on functionality escape velocity, glue-and-coprocessor architectures, and formal verification made me look again at an experimental project on BNB Chain called TapeOut. TapeOut lets participants assemble logic circuits from NAND and LATCH gates, publish the resulting netlists on-chain, test them using vectors and counterexamples, and reuse circuits as components. It does not fabricate silicon or extend the capabilities of the underlying blockchain. The EVM and smart contracts remain the underlying execution and settlement environment. What interested me was its move from stateless netlists to “Circuit Containers.” The project’s shorthand is: Circuit = logic Container = memory A Container is meant to give a circuit a persistent address and, in the project’s framing, the ability to retain state, hold assets, and own other components. This resembles your argument that evaluating pure functions is not enough for a sufficiently programmable environment; rich statefulness is also necessary. But because the EVM already provides state, TapeOut is not adding new expressiveness to the base layer. So the better question is whether “circuit logic + persistent state” can still be a useful abstraction and coordination layer—or whether it is simply an ordinary smart contract wearing a hardware-like costume. A second, weaker connection is the glue-and-coprocessor model. The developer is also trying to assemble larger processors from reusable parts, with the longer-term aim of creating something RISC-V-like. I do not think this implements your architecture. Executing gate-level designs through smart contracts is vastly less efficient than native hardware or precompiles. The more defensible potential value may instead lie in creating a public registry of inspectable and reusable modules—but only if verification becomes stronger than testing. That is the more serious missing piece. TapeOut currently uses test vectors and counterexamples. These can expose failures, but they cannot prove that a netlist matches a readable specification for every possible input. A stronger version could attach machine-checkable claims: This netlist is equivalent to this specification. This module correctly implements these instructions. This optimized circuit preserves the behavior of the readable implementation. At that point, the repository would contain verifiable computational objects rather than circuits that merely claim functionality. The economic question may be even harder. TapeOut rewards circuit creation and optimization with BEM. This can bootstrap participation, but it can also create a closed loop in which emissions reward the production of objects whose main purpose is earning more emissions. If an open circuit-component commons is valuable, its incentives should reflect external utility—not merely the number of newly created circuits. I would value your criticism on two questions: Could an on-chain registry of stateful circuit objects become a useful abstraction or coordination layer even if it adds no new expressiveness to the underlying blockchain? If the goal is a commons of reusable components, which signal—or combination of signals—seems least gameable: reuse by independent builders, resistance to adversarial counterexamples, machine-checkable equivalence, or fees generated by external calls? If you are open to responding, I would also welcome @Blonskr, TapeOut’s developer, joining the conversation so he can clarify the implementation details and correct anything I may have misunderstood. A blunt critique would be more useful to me than a polite reading, especially if you think the analogy itself is flawed. $bem #tapeout