For much of crypto’s history, “AI” has been a buzzword and “prediction markets” a curiosity. In February 2026, amid one of the market’s sharpest volatility tests in years, both are starting to look like something else entirely: infrastructure.

As Bitcoin slid and leverage unwound across derivatives markets, the familiar pattern returned. High-beta trades were flushed out, speculative tokens bled, and sentiment snapped back from euphoria to caution. But not every corner of the market moved the same way. A small but growing cluster of projects focused on AI agents, decentralized compute, and on-chain forecasting showed relative resilience and in some cases, attracted new attention precisely because they were still being used.

That divergence is feeding a broader narrative shift inside the industry. After years of trading on stories, crypto is starting to reward systems that actually do work.

Bittensor is the clearest example of this change in tone. The network, built around the TAO token, is designed as a decentralized market for machine learning. Its “subnet” model lets specialized AI models compete for rewards based on performance, effectively turning training, inference, and data contribution into on-chain economic activity. During February’s selloff, TAO was volatile like everything else, but it also rebounded more sharply than many large-cap tokens, keeping attention on its unusually high staking yields and growing subnet activity.

Those yields, which have at times exceeded 50% on specific subnets, are not coming from financial engineering alone. They are tied to demand inside the network for compute and model performance. In practical terms, that means the token’s economics are increasingly linked to usage, not just market sentiment—a distinction that matters more in a risk-off environment.

The same pattern is visible across other AI-linked projects. Tokens tied to agent frameworks and automation, such as FET and ASI, have not been immune to the broader drawdown, but they have held up better than many purely narrative-driven trades. Render, which focuses on decentralized GPU resources for rendering and AI workloads, continues to be discussed less as a “trade” and more as infrastructure for compute-intensive applications.

What connects these projects is not a shared price chart, but a shared direction of travel. The emphasis has shifted away from abstract promises about “AI on blockchain” and toward concrete use cases: agents that automate on-chain tasks, systems that manage strategies, and networks that coordinate compute across independent operators.

A similar transition is playing out in prediction markets. Long treated as niche or experimental, on-chain prediction platforms are increasingly being reframed as tools for forecasting and information aggregation: useful not only for traders, but also for analysts, developers, and automated systems.

Polymarket’s growth over the past year kept the category in the spotlight, but the space is no longer defined by a single platform. Crypto.com’s launch of its own on-chain prediction product has brought fresh attention, and industry forecasts now point to significant growth in volumes as more categories move on-chain. Some projections suggest prediction market activity could multiply several times over in 2026.

The deeper shift is not just about user growth. It is about how these markets are being used. Automated agents can already monitor conditions, place positions, and adjust strategies based on incoming data. In that sense, prediction markets are starting to function less like betting venues and more like feedback loops for machine decision-making.

For builders and investors, this convergence between AI and crypto infrastructure has become one of the more serious themes of the year. Recent industry outlooks and conference discussions have placed less emphasis on consumer hype cycles and more on tools that improve coordination, execution, and productivity on-chain.

That framing helps explain why utility-focused projects have looked relatively durable during February’s turbulence. They are still exposed to market risk—nothing in crypto is insulated from that—but they are increasingly being evaluated on what they produce rather than what they promise.

It also reflects a broader change in how capital is being allocated. After years of funding narratives first and products later, investors are showing more interest in measurable outputs: compute delivered, tasks automated, forecasts generated, strategies executed. In that environment, tokens tied to real activity start to look less like pure speculation and more like claims on services.

None of this means the sector has reached maturity. Decentralized AI remains early and fragmented. Prediction markets still face liquidity constraints and regulatory uncertainty in many jurisdictions. And high yields will always attract short-term capital alongside long-term builders.

But February’s market stress did draw a clearer line between two kinds of crypto. On one side are trades that exist mainly for price exposure. On the other are systems that continue to run, process, and coordinate activity even when the market turns hostile.

In past cycles, survival in crypto was mostly about endurance; who could hold through drawdowns and wait for the next rally. In 2026, a different test is becoming more visible: which parts of the ecosystem remain useful when the narrative breaks?

For AI agents, decentralized compute networks, and prediction markets, the answer is increasingly concrete. They are not just being traded, they are being used. And in a market slowly shifting from hype to infrastructure, that may be the most important signal of all.

‍