TIG: Tough Questions Answered

The Spaces tackled an open Q&A on TIG’s toughest community questions. Host Spartan and TIG’s co‑founder John Fletcher reviewed the Vector Search challenge’s elevation to Advance Rewards (formerly Breakthrough) after favorable expert review, including from an MIT professor. They addressed fears that open-source algorithms would be copied by Big Tech, citing robust social and reputational enforcement of licenses, engineer-driven internal compliance, and TIG’s compatible, transparent licensing fees with fair redistribution via market mechanisms. On potential benchmarking centralization, John noted commodity GPUs and broad supply chains limit ASIC-like monopolies, though cheap-power hubs will compete; on the innovation side, both individuals and firms (e.g., Granite Labs LLC) are engaging. TIG has roughly one year of runway from its initial token sale and expects to raise again; the Foundation won’t deploy treasury for DEX liquidity pre-raise, but founders/community may add and Arrow incentives help. Licensing terms will be published soon by General Counsel Phil David (ex-Arm), though first-license timing is customer-dependent. A proof-of-deposit update will clarify optimal TIG holdings for benchmarkers. Community recruitment efforts include a 500-person London hackathon with Encode and conference outreach. John acknowledged communications/marketing as a key area to improve, with hiring underway, while reaffirming a focus on long-term fundamentals over short-term “pumpamentals.”

TIG Twitter Spaces: Tough Questions, Open Answers — Summary and Notes

Participants and Roles

• John Fletcher (TIG co-founder; research lead; public-facing spokesperson)
• Spartan (host/moderator; long-time TIG supporter and VC; not part of the TIG team)
• Phil David (General Counsel; ex-Arm licensing; architect of TIG’s revenue/licensing model)
• Ying (TIG team; research/technical leadership)
• Guest references: Granite Labs LLC (innovator/challenge winner), MIT professor (expert reviewer, name not disclosed), Jihan Wu (Bitmain co-founder, used as an analogy), Sergey Nazarov (Chainlink), Peter Thiel (Facebook early investor)

Advance Rewards decision on the Vector Search challenge

• TIG held a community vote on whether a new stat filter algorithm for vector search qualifies for the highest rewards tier.
• Terminology change: “Breakthrough Rewards” was renamed to “Advance Rewards” to avoid loaded language; the criteria remain unchanged and are aligned with patentability-like rigor.
• Outcome: The vector search application was deemed an Advance and will receive higher-tier rewards.
• Expert validation: A world-expert MIT professor provided a detailed technical report on the forum supporting the novelty/efficiency in niche use cases. Spartan emphasized the external expert endorsements available on the TIG forum.
• Innovator: Granite Labs LLC developed the winning vector search approach, leveraging GPU-centric CUDA kernel optimization and introducing algorithmic differences beyond mere implementation tuning.

Transparency ethos and format of the session

• Spartan solicited tough questions anonymously; goal is radical transparency.
• John stressed TIG’s commitment to open Q&A, contrasting with conference cultures that avoid questions. TIG encourages ongoing scrutiny.

Open source licensing, enforcement, and TIG’s model

• Concern: “If TIG’s algorithms are open source, what prevents big tech from using them without paying?”
• John’s stance:
  • Precedent: Open-source licenses (e.g., GPL copyleft) are widely adhered to; reputational risk is a powerful enforcement mechanism. Engineers identify strongly with the open-source community and often refuse to violate licenses, even under internal pressure.
  • Social enforcement: The open-source community is technically literate, organized, and resistant to propaganda; compliance is in companies’ self-interest for hiring and reputation.
  • Detection: Internal engineers and investor due diligence tools detect license/IP issues; investors increasingly scan dependencies to avoid IP-laden risks.
  • Fees and open source: The open-source definition does not mandate “free.” Charging a reasonable license fee is compatible with open source. Historically, paid open-source faltered due to lack of fair, systematic revenue redistribution.
  • TIG’s solution: TIG creates a transparent, market-based remuneration mechanism (benchmarkers’ proof-of-work and rewards distribution), solving fairness disputes among contributors.
  • Phil David’s experience at Arm: Engineers would rather resign than be complicit in violating open-source terms; real-world evidence supports adherence.

Centralization risks in benchmarking/compute

• Question: Can large institutions dominate benchmarking/innovation rewards later, sidelining early contributors?
• John’s view:
  • Benchmarking hardware: TIG runs on commodity CPUs/GPUs, not ASICs, which promotes broader access. However, scale advantages (cheap electricity, cooling, locations like Iceland/Bhutan with hydropower) are real and hard to counter.
  • ASIC vs commodity: Unlike Bitcoin ASICs and manufacturers (e.g., Bitmain) with unique economics of scale, TIG uses mass-market GPUs/CPUs from NVIDIA/AMD; supply bottlenecks exist (e.g., TSMC high-end capacity), but long term, commoditization reduces monopolization.
  • Inevitability: Industrial-scale operations may outcompete home benchmarkers due to energy economics. While early days limit large players’ interest, over time, some centralization is plausible.
• Innovation side:
  • Early innovators are often individuals, but companies are joining earlier than expected (Granite Labs as a case study).
  • TIG may enable private research organizations to monetize types of science that were previously unprofitable, employing scientists in novel business models.

Runway and funding

• Current runway: About one year (slightly over), funded from a token sale ~13–14 months ago that provided ~two+ years of conservative runway.
• Future raises: The foundation expects to pursue additional raises; TIG is not likely to be self-sufficient on licensing revenue within one year.

Liquidity (DEX/market) and approach

• Migration: Liquidity moved to Arrow; Arrow’s incentives may attract LPs.
• Foundation Treasury stance: No additional liquidity from Treasury until/unless there’s a new raise; priority is not to introduce runway risk.
• Alternatives:
  • Founders’ tokens: Founders have two-year linear unlocks that started ~2 weeks ago; John is open to providing liquidity personally and/or using Arrow incentives.
  • Community liquidity: LPs from holders and founders are viable; foundation prefers to preserve operational capital.
• Spartan’s investor perspective:
  • TIG appears significantly mispriced vs fundamentals; he is long-term aligned, staking and ignoring short-term volatility.
  • Analogies: Chainlink’s long arc; price liquidity in early phases is not predictive of eventual success once product-market fit and large revenue exist.
  • “Pumpmentals” are red flags; mission execution trumps short-term chart optics.

Licensing: details and timelines

• Critical to TIG’s model; if licensing fails, TIG fails.
• Near-term output: TIG (via Phil David) will publish specific licensing terms (pricing, conditions) soon; drafting precise contracts is underway.
• Timeline caveat: First license timing depends on customers; no signed licensees yet, though outreach/informal discussions are ongoing.

Mechanisms affecting token demand (no “pumpmentals”)

• Proof-of-Deposit (PoD) changes: TIG will adjust PoD to make it easier for benchmarkers to know how much TIG to hold; equilibrium likely implies higher holdings.
• Intent: These changes target operational clarity/incentive alignment, not price manipulation.

Innovator outreach and visibility

• Hackathon: Early next month in London with Encode; ~500 participants. A gamified mini-TIG experience will let participants engage with solvable problems, while John presents TIG’s vision.
• Conferences: John will be in Singapore for technical/crypto events; TIG will announce appearances to connect with technical audiences.
• Motivations: Innovators prioritize cutting-edge ideas and scientific impact over short-term rewards; TIG’s concept attracts academics and technical talent independent of token price.

Biggest risks to TIG token success and mitigation

• John’s candid assessment:
  • Technical execution has gone smoothly (research/benchmarks/advances), but web3 execution (communications, community management, exchange listings, market making, liquidity) lags.
  • TIG must “play the web3 game” better: hire a communications manager, increase interviews, produce more digestible short-form content, and practice “drip” content release around big milestones.
  • Open to community suggestions and proposals (marketing geniuses welcome).

Raffle and community Q&A

• Winners: Ollie White and klyptic (Spartan will coordinate DM/claiming TIG tokens).
• Ollie’s marketing question: Many find TIG’s social content too technical; how will TIG improve comprehension and onboarding?
  • Response: Dedicated communications manager, more interviews, short-form explainers, structured content rollout around milestones. Spartan is also exploring a comprehensive “TIG pill” video to package TIG’s core narrative and product concepts.

Philosophical points: being early, price vs fundamentals, and patience

• Early-stage paradox: Paradigm-shifting ideas are, by definition, not widely understood. If they were easy to grasp, they’d already be crowded and fairly priced.
• Spartan: Price can be deeply decoupled from fundamentals for extended periods; long-term holders endure volatility to realize asymmetric outcomes.
• Pre-revenue realities: Investing in pre-revenue ventures requires acceptance of waiting; accredited-investor rules try to shield inexperienced investors from impatience risk, but web3 is a free market where expectations must match the thesis.

Closing clarity (

Key direct answers the audience sought)

• Will large players dominate benchmarking? Over time, some concentration is plausible due to energy economics, but commodity hardware and global supply reduce monopolization. Early-stage decentralization is robust.
• Is one year of runway enough to reach self-sustaining revenue? No. TIG expects to raise again; licensing revenue sufficiency will take longer.
• Will the foundation add liquidity now? Not from Treasury before a raise; founders/community may add liquidity and leverage Arrow incentives.
• When will licensing begin? Terms will be published soon; first license timing depends on customer demand. Outreach is ongoing but no signed deals yet.
• Are there artificial “pumpmentals” planned? No. TIG will not deploy arbitrary price-propping mechanisms; focus remains on building and aligning incentives (e.g., PoD clarity).

Action Items and Takeaways

• Publish licensing terms (pricing, conditions) — led by Phil David; “soon.”
• Implement PoD changes to clarify benchmarker TIG holdings and improve incentive alignment.
• Execute innovator outreach: London hackathon with Encode; Singapore conference appearances.
• Strengthen web3 communication: hire a communications manager; plan interviews; produce short-form, non-technical explainers; adopt “drip” content strategy around milestones.
• Explore non-Treasury liquidity provisioning (founders/community) and Arrow incentive programs.
• Maintain open, transparent AMAs; invite technical/community scrutiny and suggestions.

Bright Spots and Validations

• Advance Rewards success for Vector Search with MIT expert endorsement; Granite Labs’ GPU-optimized, algorithmically distinct approach.
• Growing interest from top-tier academics and research labs recognizing TIG’s uniqueness vs superficially similar projects.
• Strong philosophical alignment: innovators attracted by scientific significance; a robust open-source licensing stance; market-based remuneration mechanism solving historic fairness issues in open innovation.