My rubric for robot tokens is simple: if speculation disappears tomorrow, what still forces people to hold the asset?That is why Fabric caught my attention.Fabric’s token design matters only if it stays tied to verified robot work, not narrative.
The mechanism is more concrete than most. Operators post ROBO bonds to register hardware and accept jobs. Those bonds are set in stable USD terms and settled in ROBO. For each task, part of the bond is earmarked as collateral, so the same capital can secure repeated work. Fabric also routes settlement through ROBO and says part of protocol revenue would buy tokens from the market.
That is the good part. The hard part is enforcement.If uptime checks are weak, quality scores are easy to game, or validators rarely challenge bad work, then “utility” becomes decoration. The whitepaper seems aware of this: slash risk, availability thresholds, quality cutoffs, and challenge rewards carry the model.@Fabric Foundation #Robo $ROBO
So I do not think the key question is whether Fabric has utility on paper.The key question is whether Fabric can generate enough auditable robot work to make that utility real.
How will Fabric detect fake revenue or self-dealing early?
What should observers track first: verified task volume, slashing events, or real fee flow?