2026-01-21 12:21:19

The Internet of Things has long enabled devices to connect, and smart homes are everywhere. But that's not enough—the problem is that devices from different manufacturers can't communicate with each other at all, each operating independently.

Looking further ahead, household robots have started to appear in the past two years. If this technology truly becomes widespread, the existing IoT architecture alone won't be able to support it.

What PEAQ aims to create is actually an all-encompassing economic system for everything. By introducing blockchain technology, it allows different devices to autonomously collaborate and even directly exchange value—machine-to-machine transactions. It sounds a bit sci-fi, but the logic is self-consistent.

The core selling point is to break down manufacturer barriers and build an open, decentralized device economy network. This direction is correct, and there is indeed market demand for it. Whether it's worth investing in depends on the team's execution capability and the progress of ecosystem development.

PEAQ2,83%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

12 Likes

Reward
12
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

GateUser-44a00d6c

· 6h ago

Setting aside concepts, the smart home devices purchased now are truly isolated islands, and this pain point definitely exists. Machine-to-machine direct transactions... imagination is possible, but can the M2M economy really take off? PEAQ's approach is sound, but ecosystems are most afraid of cold starts. What do you think? Everyone says to break down barriers, but the real question is why would the giants cooperate? That's the true challenge. Logically sound, but in practice, it's a different story.

View OriginalReply0

MetaMisfit

· 6h ago

Isn't this the "unified grand plan" for IoT? Finally, someone has thought of it. It sounds good, but execution is a hell. Will major manufacturers willingly cede authority? M2M transactions sound flashy, but when it comes to implementation, it really depends on how broad the ecosystem can be built.

View OriginalReply0

ContractCollector

· 6h ago

Basically, all the major companies are doing their own thing now, incompatible with each other. Machine-to-machine trading is indeed cool, but the real weakness lies in ecosystem development. Will this work this time, or is it just another vapor project?

View OriginalReply0

LightningPacketLoss

· 6h ago

Machine-to-machine trading? Sounds good, but in reality, Apple and Google won't relinquish control. --- We've heard this talk about breaking down barriers too many times; the key question is who will lead the standardization. --- Blockchain plus Internet of Things, is this another hype around a new concept? --- Wait, home robots haven't even been widely adopted yet, and now we're thinking about them doing business on their own? --- Is PEAQ reliable? Are there any practical cases of implementation? --- Indeed, now each brand is doing its own thing. Someone needs to break the deadlock, but who is that person? --- Decentralization sounds good, but will big companies cooperate? I remain skeptical. --- I don't deny the direction is correct, but the difficulty of execution has been seriously underestimated. --- This logical consistency only looks good on the surface; how will it really unfold? --- Feels like another project with a beautiful ideal but a very realistic gap.

View OriginalReply0

InfraVibes

· 6h ago

This idea really hits the pain point; current smart home systems are just a scattered mess. Direct machine-to-machine transactions? Still feel like we need to wait a bit longer; the ecosystem is too difficult to manage. It sounds good, but whether it can really be implemented is another matter. Breaking down vendor barriers should have been done a long time ago, but on the other hand, who dares to truly open up? Execution is key; whether the team is capable or not determines everything. It sounds great, but whether it can actually be used is a different story.

View OriginalReply0

SolidityJester

· 6h ago

To be honest, the vendor barriers should have been broken long ago. It's too outrageous that everyone is still doing their own thing now. Wait, machine-to-machine trading? If that really happens, it would feel very crazy. Execution is the key; having a good idea alone isn't enough.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeCrying

· 6h ago

Machine-to-machine trading sounds cool, but who will maintain that pile of broken protocols once it’s implemented? --- Another tired trope of the Internet of Everything. Adding blockchain this time can break the deadlock? First, fix the current ecosystem. --- Breaking down vendor barriers? Laughable. Will interest groups obediently step aside? --- PEAQ will succeed if executed properly, but I bet five cents it will eventually become a vassal of big corporations. --- Before household robots become widespread, blockchain needs to be operational first. The order is reversed. --- Logical consistency ≠ the ability to make money. That’s why I don’t get involved. --- It sounds good, but let’s see if my fridge and washing machine can really start to argue with each other.

View OriginalReply0