There is another part of this relaunch that is much less exciting than autonomous agents, but probably just as important. The economics of Jester have been terrible. For most of the project's life we have been overwhelmingly dependent on fee generation around the token itself. The existing Jester token has a 2% fee on transfers, and that mechanism did what it needed to do early on. It helped us bootstrap the project and got us much further than we probably had any right to get with the resources we had. But it is an awful thing for an increasingly large software and infrastructure company to depend on. If token volume is high, everything is great. If token volume slows down, operating revenue slows down with it, while servers keep running, market data still costs money, agents still consume compute, execution infrastructure still has to work and development does not magically stop. We have spent years building an increasingly complicated financial technology stack while relying almost entirely on one extremely volatile source of revenue, and that has been destroying us.
There is another consequence of that structure that has become increasingly obvious as we have tried to grow. It makes basically everything outside of building the product harder too. Raising capital is harder. Bringing in serious marketers is harder. Finding strategic partners, market makers, liquidity providers and people who can actually help us scale is harder. The first thing anyone looking at Jester has to understand is a relatively complicated token structure where the company is still heavily dependent on trading activity around the token itself. Before we can even properly explain the technology, we are already explaining the tax, the fee flow, where the money goes, why the company is funded this way, and how any of that connects back to the actual platform. It made sense as a way to bootstrap something when Jester was much smaller. It makes considerably less sense when what we are trying to finance is an actual software and infrastructure company.
More importantly, it means the structure people see from the outside does not really match the business we have built underneath it. We can talk about autonomous agents, APIs, MCP, execution infrastructure, enterprise deployments, millions in routed volume and three years of actual development, but if the economic model still looks like "people trade the token and that funds the project," then everything else has to fight against that first impression. That is increasingly becoming a problem. We want to be able to sit down with an investor, a broker, a marketer, a developer or an enterprise customer and explain a business they immediately understand: people subscribe to the software, agents pay to use infrastructure, companies license or embed it, execution generates revenue, and the token has its own separate economic loop. The technology has already moved well beyond the original Jester structure. The company around it now needs to do the same.
[REDACTED] changes that by giving us more than one way to make money. The new system is being designed around multiple independent but complementary revenue streams. There will be traditional subscriptions for serious users and teams, usage-based API and MCP access for developers and systems, and individual autonomous agents will be able to pay directly for specific [REDACTED] capabilities through x402 instead of requiring a full subscription. An agent might pay a few cents for a market scan or risk evaluation, more for a backtest, and significantly more for large-scale optimization or simulation workloads. There will be execution-based revenue tied to activity flowing through the system. There will also be native front-end generated revenue, where our own interfaces, JESTER , Telegram, the terminals and future embedded experiences, charge for premium workflows, advanced tooling and execution-linked features. On top of that, there will eventually be enterprise and embedded infrastructure agreements for companies that want to build on top of [REDACTED], and there are obvious future markets around compute, data, strategy marketplaces and third-party autonomous agents.
The important part is that these are not random businesses bolted together because we needed more things to sell. They all originate from the same infrastructure. A user subscribes, their agents research, research consumes compute and infrastructure, strategies are tested, successful strategies are deployed, execution generates activity, external agents independently pay to access the same tools, our own front ends generate revenue through premium interaction layers, and other platforms can embed the system into their own products. The same underlying machine can generate revenue several different ways depending on who is using it and what they are trying to do. We are no longer dependent on a single transaction inside a Uniswap pool to sustain the company, and that by itself changes the entire shape of the business.
Humans and agents should probably pay differently as well. Humans understand subscriptions, so there will be normal subscription tiers for people who want to seriously use [REDACTED], with higher limits, more compute, larger agent fleets, more automations and lower execution costs as you move up. But machines do not need to pretend to be humans. An external agent does not need to create an account, open a pricing page, enter a credit card and decide whether it wants the monthly plan. It should be able to discover an [REDACTED] capability, see the price, decide whether the result is worth paying for, make the payment and receive the result. Maybe it needs a market scan for a few cents, a risk evaluation for a few cents more, a backtest for twenty-five cents or a large optimization job for a few dollars. If rebuilding that capability itself would cost far more than simply paying [REDACTED] for it, the decision is obvious. That creates a market which can eventually be much larger than the number of humans who ever open one of our applications. There could be thousands or hundreds of thousands of agents using [REDACTED] infrastructure without ever becoming traditional [REDACTED] users.
This also lets us give the token a much healthier job. The token should not have to pay our server bill. [REDACTED] should be capable of becoming a profitable software and infrastructure company because the software and infrastructure are useful. Subscriptions, API usage, MCP usage, x402, execution, enterprise deployments and front-end revenue should sustain the company. The token can then focus on capturing value from the economic activity created by the network rather than being forced to finance the whole thing. Our current philosophy remains heavily weighted toward buybacks, with most token-related fee generation going back toward the token and only a small amount being retained operationally. The difference is that when [REDACTED] itself becomes profitable, we do not have to constantly choose between using economic activity to support the token and using it to keep the company alive. [REDACTED] makes money. The network generates activity. The token captures part of that activity. Those systems reinforce each other, but none of them has to be broken for the others to survive.
Forwarded fromScientio
August 17, 2026 52 2
