OpenMind kicked off the Future of Robots conversation on @BloombergTV. Founder @JanLiphardt discusses how software is shaping social & home robotics, and how our hardware-agnostic platform helps humanoid companies move faster.

We’ve successfully tested a connection between OpenMind robots and Virtuals ACP. This early test gives embodied AI access to an agent ecosystem that can coordinate, execute, and settle real tasks, hinting at robots as economic participants, not just interfaces. — aGDP

This week, we were featured in Forbes and The Robot Report where our Founder, @JanLiphardt gave his thoughts on: Physical AI’s Future - Microsoft-OpenAI Alliance Overhauled As Battle For AI Dominance Widens - Take a look at how OpenMind is navigating the changing AI + robotics landscape.

Why Generic Humanoid Robots Will Fail — And What's Next Imagine an alternate world where we never invented the car. In that world, a robotics engineer might reasonably conclude that robotic horses are the future — replace the living ones, keep the stables and saddles, ride them to work. Convenient, modern, and the roads stay free of manure. It sounds absurd only because you already know about cars. We keep making the same mistake with humanoid robots. Consider transportation. To finally make driving safe, we had two options: put a humanoid in the driver's seat, or embed sensing and compute directly into the vehicle. Waymo chose the latter. It has no steering wheel. It exists purely to move people efficiently from A to B. The humanoid was not needed. Consider a sock factory. Yes, you could replace workers with humanoid robots one-for-one on the assembly line — and gain maybe 2-3x efficiency. Or you could completely redesign the workflow around a purpose-built autonomous sewing system and eliminate most of the factory, the chairs, the cafeteria, the manual sewing machines, the HVAC, the doors, and the restrooms. The actual optimization is to side-step the previous human-imposed physical constraint. Look at Ukraine. The front lines aren't filling up with Terminator-style humanoids carrying rifles. Human soldiers are being replaced by heterogeneous swarms of purpose-specific drones: some for reconnaissance, some for logistics, some for delivering munitions. War is being restructured around the desired outcome (survival), not the soldier's shape. Consider a 1970's office. Want to move information through teams of people? We once used typists, paper, trucks to supply the paper, typewriters, and repair technicians. A linear improvement would have been to replace the human typist with a 10-fingered humanoid. What actually happened? The entire workflow — paper, printers, typewriter factories, delivery trucks, the desks, the offices — was obliterated. Email deleted the human clerk's entire universe. Consider cancer early detection by mammography. Today, getting a mammogram requires expensive hardware, logistics infrastructure, human nurses and doctors, a biopsy workflow, a human pathologist with a microscope (imported from Germany or Japan), a written finding, multiple physician reviews. Sure, you could replace the pathologist with a humanoid (the microscope focus knob requires finger dexterity) and get a modest efficiency gain (and faster responses at 2 am). Or — the far more likely future — we all swallow a cancer detection pill every few months, and 24 hours later a color-changing sticker on our arm turns red or green. No hardware. No hospital. No logistics. No pathologist. No office. No desk. No humanoid. The workflow isn't optimized by a literal drop-in swap of a human pathologist for a humanoid. The entire workflow simply ceases to exist. Consider life sciences research and drug development. We're seeing excitement about robot arms and humanoids pipetting water in research labs. Robot horses, episode 7. We don't design aircraft by crashing test planes — we simulate them entirely in software first. Biology will go the same way. The path to scalable drug discovery isn't robot arms in conventional wet labs demonstrating 10 fingered prowess in manipulating Eppendorf tubes filled with purple food coloring. Rather, we need in-silico biological models that evaluate billions of hypotheses computationally, with physical manipulation of atoms only at the very end. The clear pattern. Efficient automation doesn't try to replicate a 10-fingered human in a static context. Automation eliminates physical rate-limiting steps in their entirety. That's why "classical" humanoid robots, as a generic category, will largely fail. They're robotic horses. They assume the infrastructure and workflows stay fixed and only the 10-fingered human is swapped out. That's not how economic and technological pressure works. What actually matters? If humans continue to inhabit the physical world, then moving atoms will remain important, and that requires five things: atoms, energy, force generation and actuation, sensing, and compute. Everything else — form factor, number of limbs, type of end effector — is a variable to be optimized for the task. So if you are a pathologist, a robotics engineer, a teacher, a parent, a politician, or a sewing factory owner - please think different. Most obviously, we should all anticipate, and build for, a future in which robots exhibit extreme physical fluidity: Two arms or four. Wheels or legs. Tentacles or flippers. Three fingers or twelve, or none at all. Eyes at the front, side, or tip of a tentacle. At OpenMind, we don't care what you look like right now - we got you, in all your physical form factors. OM2 ships in July, for all machines. Let's build.

Over the past year, many people I talk to have expressed worry about two topics: * Various aspects of the way the world is going: government control and surveillance, wars, corporate power and surveillance, tech enshittification / corposlop, social media becoming a memetic warzone, AI and how it interplays with all of the above... * The brute reality that Ethereum seems to be absent from meaningfully improving the lives of people subject to these things, even on the dimensions we deeply care about (eg. freedom, privacy, security of digital life, community self-organization) It is easy to bond over the first, to commiserate over the fact that beauty and good in the world seems to be receding and darkness advancing, and uncaring powerful people in high places are making this happen. But ultimately, it is easy to acknowledge problems, the hard thing is actually shining a light forward, coming up with a concrete plan that makes the situation better. The second has been weighing heavily on my mind, and on the minds of many of our brightest and most idealistic Ethereans. I personally never felt any upset or fear when political memecoins went on Solana, or various zero-sum gambling applications go on whatever 250 millisecond block chain strikes their fancy. But it *does* weigh on me that, through all of the various low-grade online memetic wars, international overreaches of corporate and government power, and other issues of the last few years, Ethereum has been playing a very limited role in making people's lives better. What *are* the liberating technologies? Starlink is the most obvious one. Locally-running open-weights LLMs are another. Signal is a third. Community Notes is a fourth, tackling the problem from a different angle. One response is to say "stop dreaming big, we need to hunker down and accept that finance is our lane and laser-focus on that". But this is ultimately hollow. Financial freedom and security is critical. But it seems obvious that, while adding a perfectly free and open and sovereign and debasement-proof financial system would fix some things, but it would leave the bulk of our deep worries about the world unaddressed. It's okay for individuals to laser-focus on finance, but we need to be part of some greater whole that has things to say about the other problems too. At the same time, Ethereum cannot fix the world. Ethereum is the "wrong-shaped tool" for that: beyond a certain point, "fixing the world" implies a form of power projection that is more like a centralized political entity than like a decentralized technology community. So what can we do? I think that we in Ethereum should conceptualize ourselves as being part of an ecosystem building "sanctuary technologies": free open-source technologies that let people live, work, talk to each other, manage risk and build wealth, and collaborate on shared goals, in a way that optimizes for robustness to outside pressures. The goal is not to remake the world in Ethereum's image, where all finance is disintermediated, all governance happens through DAOs, and everyone gets a blockchain-based UBI delivered straight to their social-recovery wallet. The goal is the opposite: it's de-totalization. It's to reduce the stakes of the war in heaven by preventing the winner from having total victory (ie. total control over other human beings), and preventing the loser from suffering total defeat. To create digital islands of stability in a chaotic era. To enable interdependence that cannot be weaponized. Ethereum's role is to create "digital space" where different entities can cooperate and interact. Communications channels enable interaction, but communication channels are not "space": they do not let you create single unique objects that canonically represent some social arrangement that changes over time. Money is one important example. Multisigs that can change their members, showing persistence exceeding that of any one person or one public key, are another. Various market and governance structures are a third. There are more. I think now is the time to double down, with greater clarity. Do not try to be Apple or Google, seeing crypto as a tech sector that enables efficiency or shininess. Instead, build our part of the sanctuary tech ecosystem - the "shared digital space with no owner" that enables both open finance and much more. More actively build toward a full-stack ecosystem: both upward to the wallet and application layer (incl AI as interface) and downward to the OS, hardware, even physical/bio security levels. Ultimately, tech is worthless without users. But look for users, both individual and institutional, for whom sanctuary tech is exactly the thing they need. Optimize payments, defi, decentralized social, and other applications precisely for those users, and those goals, which centralized tech will not serve. We have many allies, including many outside of "crypto". It's time we work together with an open mind and move forward.